Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
PRABHURAM MILLS – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1593 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
For the Respondents: SMT. RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN, SR.G.P
The court affirmed that tax demands issued within statutory limits are valid and advised seeking remedy for installment facilities.
Headnote:This writ petition concerns the challenge to a tax demand based on expired assessments. The petitioner claims that the demand is barred by limitation, but the court found that demand notices were issued within the statutory limits. The petitioner is advised to seek an installment facility from the appropriate authority. The petition is dismissed without prejudice.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tax demand based on limitation. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's advice on seeking installment facility. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P6 intimation, requiring the petitioner to pay the arrears of tax as per Exts.P3 to P5 orders of assessment, under the provisions of the CGST/KGST Act. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the demand is barred by the limitation. However, it is seen from the records that, all the assessment orders were issued in the year 2018 and the demand notice was issued in 2025. Therefore, under no circumstances the same can be treated as barred by limitation.
2. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought an installment facility. However, the statute contemplates, vide Rule 51 of the CGST Rules, for granting installment facility. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to move the appropriate authority by invoking the remedy.
In such circumstances this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the competent authority seeking installment facility.
