Disposed

M/S. St. Anotny Timber Depot v. the Assistant Commissioner

Kerala HC22 Jul 2024WP(C)/40445/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assessee challenged a reopened KVAT assessment for 2010-11 initiated on the basis of a penalty order. Relying on Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents, the court held the Section 25(1) notice was beyond the period of limitation and quashed the impugned assessment orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order (Ext.P4) and proceedings (Ext.P5) quashed; writ petition disposed.

M/S. St. Anotny Timber Depot Vs the Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 40445 OF 2016

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

M/S. ST. ANOTNY TIMBER DEPOT CHEVOOR- 680 027, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BABU JOHN

¶7

BY ADV SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR- 680 001

¶10

2 THE DEPUTY COMMSSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE,THRISSUR- 680 001

¶11

3 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001

¶13

4 INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR- 680 001

¶14

SRI.SAYED M.THANGAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.40445 of 2016

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2024

¶20

The above writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P4 order of assessment and Ext.P5 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent.

¶21

The petitioner is an assessee under the KVAT Act on the rolls

¶22

of the 1^st respondent. Ext.P1 penalty was issued with respect to the transportation carried out on 10.12.2010 and it was imposed on 12.05.2016, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal. While so, Ext.P2 pre-assessment notice was issued by the 1^st respondent proposing to reopen the assessment for the year 2010-2011 on the basis of Ext.P1 penalty order. Despite Ext.P3 reply, Ext.P4 proceeding was issued. The 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P5, the extension of time limit under Section 25B of the Act for completing the assessment for 2010-11 till 31.03.2016. Even then it appears that Ext.P2 notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act for the very same assessment year is beyond the period of limitation.

¶23

This issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and Others v. M/s.Cholayil Pvt.Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.4306 of 2022 and connected cases) and also in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No.40445 of 2016

¶26

Taxes v. Carborundum Universal Ltd. (WA No.1188 of 2017) and also in Commercial Tax Officer v. Najeem (2018 (3) KLT 877).

¶27

Going by the above decisions it appears that the impugned

¶28

notices and proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act for the assessment

¶29

year 2010-11 are issued beyond the time, and even on considering Section

¶30

25(b) of the Act, the period of limitation is over.

¶31

Taking into consideration of the above facts, the impugned

¶32

orders in this writ petition are quashed.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

SD/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

¶35

das

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.40445 of 2016

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40445/2016

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

EXHIBITP1	COPY OF INTELLIGEN	ORDER CE OFFI	ISSUED BY THE CER, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P2	COPYH OF RESPONDENT	NOTICE	ISSUED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF RE BEFORE THE	PLY FIL 1ST RE	ED BY THE PETITIONER SPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF RESPONDENT	ORDER	ISSUED BY THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF RESPONDENT	ORDER	ISSUED BY THE 2ND

M/S. St. Anotny Timber Depot v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. St. Anotny Timber Depot v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

General Secretary, Ernakulam District Inudstrial Estate Mazdoor Sangh Vs the Managind Director, Nadukkara Agro Processing Company Ltd.

Amina Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Kunju C a, Vs the District Collector

C.v.Pratheesh Vs the State of Kerala

Vavachan Alias Babu Vs State of Kerala

Babu T.A Vs State of Kerala