JUDGMENT :

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:-

"To quash Ext.P4 order issued by the first respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction."

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;

The petitioner is engaged in the trading of arecanut and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. As per Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent has finalised the assessment for the year 2011-12 under Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the CST Rules') and there were no dues payable to the Department. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 notice under Rule 6(5) read with 6(7) of the CST Rules, proposing to assess the petitioner afresh. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection to the proposal. However, as per Ext.P4 order, the first respondent finalised the proceedings with a demand of Rs.1,65,622/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the assessment for the year 2011-12 was originally finalised under Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules and thereafter, the assessment can be re-opened only under Rule 6(7). But the respondent has purposely projected Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules in Ext.P2 notice in order to get over the time limit of 4 years provided therein. Rule 6(7) of CST Rules provides a period of four years from the end of the year to which assessment relates, to re-open the assessment and the period of limitation has come to an end by 31-03-2016 and hence Ext.P4 assessment order is barred by limitation.

5. The learned Government Pleader submits that, Ext.P4 order has been passed under Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules. Hence, the assessment is within the time limit and no limitation is attracted in this case. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader in the counter affidavit filed that as per Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act') assessment is treated as pending u/s.25 and as per provisions of the CST Act, inserted in the Finance Act 2016, time limit mentioned thereunder will not be applicable to the cases in which the dealer fails to file revised annual return rectifying the mistake or omission and fails to file the annexure, statements, certificates, declarations including the statutory declarations to be filed under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 which are required to be filed along with the returns to prove the correctness of the concessional rate of tax, exemptions and exports claimed in the returns. This provision has been given retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. It has been specifically mentioned in the new sub-section that the assessment of the dealers covering the ingredients mentioned in the sub-section for the purpose of section 25 and also for the relevant provisions of CST Act shall be treated as pending and the time limit mentioned thereunder shall not be applicable in such cases.

6. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is seen that the CST assessment for the year 2011-12 was completed on 30.12.2016 with an excess amount of Rs.24,316/- payable to the assesee. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed Ext.P4 order, on the basis of Ext.P2 notice dated 03.03.2017 issued under Rule 6(5) read with Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules.

Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules reads as follows :

“6(5) After the close of the year the assessing authority shall after such scrutiny of the accounts and after such enquiry as he considers necessary satisfy himself that the return or returns filed are correct and complete and finally assess under a single order the tax or taxes payable under the Act for the preceding year or for the year to which the return submitted relates as the case may be provided that if no return or returns have been submitted by the dealer as required