The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging an assessment order for AY 2011-12. The court held the order unsustainable as the six-year limitation period under Section 25(1) of the Kerala VAT Act had expired and quashed the proceedings.
The Ext.P3 assessment order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.870 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER:
JOHNSON AND COMPANY, NETTIKKADAN HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU, KURUMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM-683579, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. JOHNSON JOSEPH.
BY ADVS. SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.M.G.SHAJI SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV SHRI.KIRAN RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WORKS CONTRACT, S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY-682002.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.
SMT JASMINE M M,GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.870 OF 2020(G) 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of February 2020
Petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the proceedings of assessment under Section 25(1) read with section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, whereby, for the assessment year 2011-2012 proceedings has
been initiated by issuing Exts.P1 and P1(a) notices dated 13.2.2019 and 20.3.2019.
it is not the proceeding under Section 25(A) of the Act and do
not prescribe any limitation for taking action qua the escape assessment. The matter in controversy is covered by this Court rendered in judgment in Manzil Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner, work contract & others in WP(C) No.14113 of 2019 dated 18.12.2019.
WP(C).No.870 OF 2020(G) 3
Government Pleader. Keeping in view of the aforementioned fact, particularly when the notice dated 13.2.2019, limitation
of six years as per the amended provisions of Section 25(1) is
already over, Ext.P3 assessment order is not sustainable and
hereby quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE
ACM/17.2.2020
WP(C).No.870 OF 2020(G) 4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED FOR 2011-12 DATED 13.02.2019. EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED FOR 2011-12 DATED 20.03.2019. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED DATED 15.03.2019. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT PASSED FOR 2011-12 DATED 30.09.2019. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MANZIL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WORKS CONTRACT AND OTHERS IN WP(C) NO.14113 OF 2019 DATED 18.12.2019.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an assessment order passed beyond the six-year limitation period under amended Section 25(1) of the Kerala VAT Act is sustainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manzil Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner, work contract & othersRelied on¶22
Manzil Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner, work contract & others in WP(C) No.14113 of 2019 dated 18.12.2019
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Johnson and Company
The Assistant Commissioner, Works Contract
The Commissioner of State Taxes
The State of Kerala
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
