Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
KUNNUMMEL CONSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16908 OF 2017
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to challenge an assessment order based on late notice. (Para 1) |
| 2. court hears arguments from both sides regarding the validity of the notice. (Para 2) |
| 3. court finds notice as unsustainable based on precedent. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner an assessee under the provisions of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P3 assessment order for the year 2009-10 initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 notice dated 13.02.2017, under Section 25 (1) of the Act, on the ground of limitation.
2. I have heard, Smt. Nandana Bhat, representing Sri. Aji V. Dev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. Arun Chandy, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. This Court notices that Ext.P1 notice has been issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 25 (1) of the Act, and hence Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. Though reference is also made to the provisions of Section 42 (3) of the Act, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. MCP Enterprises , Thrissur [ 2022 KHC OnLine 981 ], steps have to be initiated with reference to the provisions of Rule 58(20) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules,2005.
In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand allowed. Ext.P3 assessment order issued by the 2nd respondent is set aside.
Sd/-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
