Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 18988
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
M/S PODUVALSONS – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 32828/2014
The court emphasized the necessity to exhaust administrative remedies before invoking discretionary jurisdiction in matters of limitation under the KVAT Act.
Headnote:
Limitation - KVAT Act - Section 25(1), 25B - The court analyzed the implications of statutory limitations on assessments under the KVAT Act and clarified the appropriate procedures for contesting notices on these grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged notices issued under section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, arguing that the statutory assessment period had expired and that the proceedings were illegal due to limitation.
Issues: Whether the notices issued under section 25(1) were barred by limitation and the appropriateness of the petitioners' legal recourse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the extension of the limitation period was valid and that the petitioners should first address their objections to the notices with the respondent.
Final Decision: Writ Petitions disposed; petitioners directed to file objections regarding limitation.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in these cases challenge the correctness and sustainability of notices issued by the respondent under section 25(1) of KVAT Act , for the concerned assessment years (Exhibits P1 to P3 in WP(C)No.32828/2014 and Exhibits P1 and P2 in WP(C) No.33477/2014). The case put up by the petitioners is that the statutory period for completing the assessment is already over and that the proceedings are per se wrong and illegal in all respects, as barred by the limitation.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions obtained in WP(C) No.32828/2014, that the period of limitation was extended by the competent authority by passing appropriate order on 29.09.2014, in exercise of the power vested with him under section 25B of W.P.(C) Nos.32828 & 33477/2014 the KVAT Act . This being the position, the idea and understanding of the petitioner is per se wrong and not sustainable in law.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the course to be pursued and the procedure to be followed while passing an Order under section 25B has been made clear by a Division Bench of this Court as per decision in State of Kerala v. Royal Enterprises in STR No.45/2002.
4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the said decision stands on a different footing and that the petitioner is not justified in approaching this Court seeking to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, more so, since it is pre-mature, being at the notice stage.
5. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is relegated to approach the respondent, by filing objection, both on the question of law, as well as on facts. The W.P.(C) Nos.32828 & 33477/2014 respondent shall consider the plea of limitation as a 'preliminary issue' and proceed with further steps, if necessary, passing appropriate orders in this regard in accordance with law; of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Objection, if any, shall be filed within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the proceedings, as above, shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
Writ Petitions are disposed of. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
