Reopening of tax assessments after a significant delay is legally unsustainable, stressing adherence to statutory provisions and established judicial principles.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was the registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act . The assessment pertaining to the year 2004-2005 of the petitioner was completed under Section 17D of the KGST Act as per order dated 08.03.2010 by the 1^st respondent under the Fast Track scheme. After expiry of 15 years from the assessment year 2004-2005 and after more than 9 years from the date of completion of the original assessment, the 1^st respondent reopened the assessment as per Ext.P7 vide order dated 10.02.2020. This writ petition is filed challenging the said assessment order.

2. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that, the reopening of the assessment, after 15 years is not legally sustainable. It is pointed out that, Ext.P7 assessment order was issued after issuing a pre-assesment notice dated 20.11.2019 which itself was after 14 years of the assessment. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1700/2021 , wherein, this Court interfered with the proceedings, taking note of the fact that, the assessment was sought to be reopened after 14 years.

3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance upon a yet another decision of this Court in Betty Sebastian v. Assistant Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes and Others [(2018) 59 GSTR 275], wherein it is held that, under Section 17D of the KGST Act, there is no period of limitation. However, in Writ Appeal No.1700/2021 , this Court after referring to the decision rendered inBetty Sebastian's case (supra) held that, to condone a delay of 14 years in issuing a notice under Section 17D , on the specious plea that Section 17D does not prescribe for a period of limitation, would tantamount to doing violence to the language used in the statutory provision, which deals with “fast track assessments” and also run contrary to its inherent scheme. Thus, it was held that, a proposal to reopen the assessment after a period of 14 years is not at all legally sustainable.

4. After considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that, the principles laid down by this Court in Writ Appeal No.1700/2021 are clearly applicable to this case.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P7, holding that the said proceedings are time barred.

Sd/-