Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7676
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
M/S. KOCHI BIENNALE FOUNDATION – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6180 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.A.KUMAR (SR.), SHRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR, SMT.G.MINI, SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD, SRI.JOB ABRAHAM
For the Respondents: SHRI.MANU S., SRI.R.HARISHANKAR
The mandatory nature of assessment timelines under Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act is affirmed, ensuring compliance in administrative procedures.
Headnote:The judgment evaluates the challenge against an assessment order issued under the Finance Act, 1994, citing violation of Section 73(4B) which mandates timely assessment completion. The court finds that the assessment completed after the statutory timeframe was invalid, aligning with established case law indicating the prescription as mandatory. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, thereby setting aside the impugned assessment order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to assessment order by charitable trust. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. violation of mandatory assessment timeline established. (Para 3) |
| 3. affirmation of legality linked to precedent cases. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a charitable trust registered as such. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P3 assessment order issued under the provisions of the Finance Act , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the period from 2012- 13 to 2016-17, essentially on account of the violation of the prescription under Section 73 (4B) of the Act.
2. Heard Sri.A.Kumar, the learned senior counsel instructed by Smt.G.Mini, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.R.Harishankar, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein.
3. The challenge raised in this writ petition, as noticed earlier, is with reference to the violation of the prescription under Section 73 (4B) of the Act, which requires the assessing authority to mandatorily complete the assessment within a period of six months/one year from the date of the notice. In the case at hand, the show cause notice was issued on 26.04.2018 and the petitioner had also filed a reply on 24.11.2018. However, the impugned order at Ext.P3 was issued only on 21.03.2022. This is patently beyond the period prescribed under Section 73 (4B) of the Act.
4. Though the respondents have taken up a contention to the effect that the prescription referred to above is only advisory in nature, this Court, in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise [2025 KHC OnLine 180] , has considered the very same issue with reference to the limitation prescribed under Section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, holding that the prescription thereunder is mandatory. To the same effect is the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Roots Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi East Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 160] and the judgment of the Patna High Court in M/s. Shaurya and Company v. The Union of India & Ors. [2025 (5) TMI 298]. This Court also takes note of the contained in the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Roots (Supra) wherein it has been categorically found that the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1994, considered in Apollo Tyres (Supra) and the provisions of Section 73 (4B) of the Act are pari materia.
In light of the discussions as above, this writ petition stands allowed, setting aside Ext.P3 assessment order.
Sd/-
