SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ, J
M/S. P.C.MALPANI & COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Special Circle-1, Department of Commercial Taxes – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11901 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.SRIKUMAR (SR.), SHRI.P.R.AJITH KUMAR, KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN, SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN, SRI.S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM)
For the Respondents: SRI. ARUNCHADY GP

Assessment proceedings initiated beyond statutory time limits infringe upon the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.

Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'The assessment order issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.', 'facts': 'The petitioner, a registered dealer, contested the assessment order completed on 31.03.2016 for the assessment year 2010-11, claiming it was beyond the statutory period allowed under Section 25(1).', 'findings': 'The proceedings for assessment were initiated too late per the statutory provisions.', 'issues': 'The court addressed whether the proceedings initiated were compliant with the time limits set by Section 25(1) of the Act.', 'ratio_decidendi': 'The proceedings initiated after the expiry of the five-year limit contravene the provisions of Section 25(1). The court noted the applicability of the decision in The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) v. M/s. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd., [(2022) 14 SCC 779].', 'result': 'Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.'}

Table of Content
1. time limits for assessment proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. compliance with statutory provisions. (Para 3)

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026 The petitioner, who is a partnership firm, is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act , 2003 (in short “the Act”) in the State. The issue pertains to this writ petition is the assessment order issued under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2010-11. However, the assessment for 2010–2011 was completed under (1)

on 31.03.2016.

2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Act, the proceedings under must be initiated within five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates. In the present case, the return relates to the period 2010– 2011, whereas the notice under (1) was issued only on 25.07.2016.

3. Under such circumstances, it appears that the proceedings are against the statutory provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Act. The said issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) v.

M/s. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd., [(2022) 14 SCC 779].

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top