Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 12856
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Easwaran S., JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
BHARATI AIRTEL LIMITED – Respondent
WA 1748/2020
SMT.RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER; ADV.SRI.A.KUMAR (SR.)
The notice for reopening an assessment under the KVAT Act was valid as it was issued within the six-year limitation period established by the 2017 amendment.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Section 25(1) - Writ appeal against assessment order - The assessment order was challenged on grounds of limitation, asserting that the notice was issued beyond the six-year limit for the assessment year 2013-14 - The learned Single Judge found the notice issued beyond the limitation period as per the statute at the time - However, the Division Bench clarified that the notice was issued within the six-year period post-amendment in 2017, thus the assessment order was valid - The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 2-5)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioner contested an assessment order claiming it was barred by limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, asserting the notice was issued beyond the six-year limit for the assessment year 2013-14.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench found that the notice was issued within the six-year period as amended in 2017, thus the assessment order was valid and the learned Single Judge's ruling was based on an erroneous assumption.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the notice for reopening the assessment was issued within the limitation period as per the KVAT Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice was valid as it was issued within the six-year limitation period established by the KVAT Act post-amendment, overturning the Single Judge's decision.
Result: Writ appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
D r. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the Revenue aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.09.2020 of a learned Single Judge in W.P. (C).No.12941 of 2020.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:
The 1st respondent/writ petitioner had approached this Court through the writ petition aforementioned impugning Ext.P6 assessment order on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The essence of the contention raised before the Writ Court was that Section 25 (1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as the “KVAT Act”] had provided for a period of six years for completion of assessment and since the assessment in question was for the assessment year 2013-14, the notice issued to the 1st respondent/assessee in the instant case was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under (1) of the KVAT Act and consequently, the assessment order that was impugned in the writ petition had also to be seen as one passed without jurisdiction.
3. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in the writ petition found that the issue as regards the time limit within which a notice had to be issued for reopening an assessment under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act had been amended to 6 years from 5 years through the amendment effected in the year 2017. It was found however that the notice in the instant case had been issued beyond the period of limitation contemplated under the Statute as it stood during the relevant time and hence the impugned assessment order could not be legally sustained. The writ petition was therefore allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside Ext.P6 order of assessment.
4. Before us, it is the submission of Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran, the learned Government Pleader that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the mistaken assumption that the notice issued to the 1st respondent/assessee for reopening an assessment of 2013-14 was belated. She points out that the notice under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act was issued within a period of six years on 16.01.2019. She also refers to the judgment dated 22.11.2024 in W.A.No.1753 of 2020 of the Division Bench, of which one of us [Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.] was a party, to contend that the Division Bench had considered a similar case and had allowed the writ appeal by noticing the erroneous assumption of facts by the learned Single Judge. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:
“6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find force in the submission of the learned Government Pleader, for we find that the assessment year in question is 2013-14 under the KVAT Act. The KVAT Act was amended in 2017, whereby the period of limitation for re-opening the assessment was enhanced from five years to six years. No doubt, in those cases where the erstwhile period of limitation of five years had already expired before the date of the amendment of Section 25 (1) in 2017, the Revenue would not be permitted to re-open assessments that had been settled, through a fresh notice issued thereafter invoking the six-year period of limitation. In the instant case, however, we find that the assessment year in question is 2013-14 and the limitation period for re-opening assessment under (1) of the KVAT Act was six years. The notice under (1) having been issued on 06.02.2020 was well within the period of six years contemplated under (1) as it stood then. It was only on account of the erroneous assumption of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition came to be allowed on the ground of limitation.”
5. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Government Pleader and finding that in the instant case also the amendment to Section 25 (1) had come about in 2017 itself and the notice issued to the 1st respondent/assessee in the instant case was within the six year period of limitation that was operative for the assessment year 2013-14,
