Allowed

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd., v. Asistant Commissioner(Special Circle I)

Kerala HC12 Apr 2024WP(C)/33814/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging a notice to re-open an assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act. It relied on a Division Bench decision to quash the notice as barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 Notice under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is quashed; no order as to costs.

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd., Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO LTD.,
K.P KESAVA MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M.P.VEERENDRA KUMAR.

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.P.ABDUL AZEES
SMT.T.ARCHANA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 ASISTANT COMMISSIONER(SPECIAL CIRCLE I) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶12

BY ADV.:

¶13

SRI.SAYED.M.THANGAL, G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018 -2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The present writ petition is filed by M/s. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited challenging Ext.P2 Notice of re-opening of the assessment under the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The main point raised in the writ petition is the limitation with regard to the reopening of such assessment. According to the petitioner a period of limitation is provided under the provisions of the Act and therefore the action of the respondents in issuing the notice to re-open the assessment already completed in the year 2011-2012 cannot be justified.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel Sri.K.P.Abdul Azeez appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sayed M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018 -3-

¶20

The issue as to whether the notice is barred by limitation and also whether an assessment could be reopened beyond the statutory time limits under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in State of Kerala Vs. Periyar Plywoods (2020 KHC 781) . On a consideration of the materials on record, I find that the principles laid down by the Division Bench will clearly apply to the facts of this Case. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 Notice under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is quashed. No order as to costs.

¶21

 Sd/-

¶22

EASWARAN S.
 JUDGE

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018 -4-

¶25

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33814/2018

¶26

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶27

`EXHIBIT P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMEN`	`T ORDER`
	`NO.32110246822/11-12 DATED 24.` `PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMI` `SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL` `KOZHIKODE.`	`02.2015,` `SSIONER,` `TAXES,`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`THE` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `NO.32110246822/2011-12`	`NOTICE` `DATED`
	`20.07.2018, ISSUED BY THE A` `COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE`	`SSISTANT` `I, STATE`
	`GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEP` `KOZHIKODE.`	`ARTMENT,`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT` `HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.27` `DATED 10.06.2013.`	`OF THIS` `842/2010`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT` `HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL 1` `DATED 11.07.2013.`	`OF THIS` `018/2013`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT` `HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT` `NO.2083/2015 DATED 12.11.2015.`	`OF THIS` `APPEAL`

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd., v. Asistant Commissioner(Special Circle I)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd., v. Asistant Commissioner(Special Circle I)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.T. Mathew Vs the Bar Council of India

Jaimon Jose Vs Kottayam Municipality

Nazeer K.M Vs the Managing Director

Kerala Maritime Organization, Vs Union of India

Manoj Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Life Insurance Agents Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.R. 1021, Vs Nelson David