INSIGHT PRINT COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD v. STATE TAX OFFICER
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2020-07-03. INSIGHT PRINT COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD v. STATE TAX OFFICER. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C). No. 13257 OF 2020(F) PETITIONER/S: INSIGHT PRINT COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD 28/3300, CHERUPARAMBATH ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020, (REPRESENTED BY SRI. ABHILASH K. BABU, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY). BY ADVS. SRI. K. N. SREEKUMARAN SRI. P. J. ANILKUMAR (A-1768) SRI. N. SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER 1ST CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. THUSHARA JOHN GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03. 07. 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C). No. 13257 OF 2020(F) JUDGMENT rd Dated this the 3 day of July 2020 Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.
P3 order passed by st the 1 respondent under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (herein after referred to as 'the KVAT') for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 23. 03. 2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, assessment is to be processed within five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates. It is also submitted that the time limit prescribed had been amended to six years from five years as per the amendment brought in the statute book by virtue of Kerala Finance Act. It is also contended that Ext. P1 notice is passed without proper service of notice to the petitioner. The controversy pertaining to issuing a notice beyond the period of limitation no longer exists in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Baiju AA & Others vs. State Tax Officer [2020 (1) KHC 39] and MCP Enterprises & Others vs. State of Kerala & Others [2020 WP(C). No. 13257 OF 2020(F) (1) KHC 127]. 3.
Learned Government Pleader do not dispute the date of issuance of notice. Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act empowers the authorities to initiate the assessment proceedings alleged to have been escaped within a period of five years as amendment in 2017 has been held to be prospective. On going through the provisions interpreted by this Court in the judgment cited (supra), I am of the view that Ext. P3 is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, Ext. P3 is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. SD/- AMIT RAWAL sab JUDGE WP(C). No. 13257 OF 2020(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED 06. 02. 2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 6(5) OF THE CST ACT DATED 06. 02. 2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. 32071120694/2013-14 DATED 23. 03. 2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CST NO. 32071120694C/2013-14 DATED 23. 03. 2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 6(5) OF THE CST ACT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25. 02. 2020 IN IA NO. 1/2020 IN WPC NO. 3802/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Source: High Court of Kerala. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.