Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
VAZHATAHARA METALS AND GRANITES – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12761 OF 2020 | WP(C) NO. 2310 OF 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.AJI V.DEV, SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV, SRI.K.P.ABDUL AZEES, SHRI.AKHIL SURESH, SMT.T.ARCHANA
For the Respondents: SMT.RESHMITHA R CHANDRAN, SR.G.P, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Assessment notices under KVAT Act Section 25 beyond statutory limitation period are invalid.

Headnote:The petitioners challenge assessment orders issued under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, contending that proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory limitation period, even when read with Section 42(3). Essential facts involve notices and assessments for tax years 2008-09 to 2011-12 issued after the prescribed time. The court finds the notices were issued beyond the statutory period, relying on prior Division Bench decisions. The core issue is whether assessment proceedings under Section 25, read with Section 42(3), can exceed the limitation period under Section 25. The ratio decidendi holds that the limitation under Section 25 applies strictly, as affirmed in prior rulings, rendering impugned orders time-barred. Writ petitions allowed; impugned assessment orders quashed.

JUDGMENT

In both these writ petitions, the challenge is against the assessment orders issued under Section 25 of the KVAT Act . The main challenge raised by the petitioners in these cases is based on the period of limitation contemplated under Section 25 . However, the respondents have initiated proceedings based on Section 25 read with Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act . As far as the issue raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions are concerned, the same had already been decided in their favour, by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. MCP Enterprises [Writ Appeal No.676/2020] and also in State of Kerala v. M/s. Chowdary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [O.T. Rev.

No.106/2021]

On perusal of the records it is evident that, the notices in these cases were issued beyond the statutory period contemplated under the Act and hence in the light of the decisions referred to above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly these writ petitions are disposed of quashing the impugned assessment orders, which are Ext.P3 in W.P.(c.) No.2310/2020 and Ext.P1 series assessment orders in W.P.(c.)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JVAZHATAHARA METALS AND GRANITES – AppellantVersusTHE STATE TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT – RespondentWP(C) NO. 12761 OF 2020 | WP(C) NO. 2310 OF 2020

Assessment notices under KVAT Act Section 25 beyond statutory limitation period are invalid.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
VAZHATAHARA METALS AND GRANITES – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 12761 OF 2020 | WP(C) NO. 2310 OF 2020