IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 9999 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S:

1 M/S. KURIAN ABRAHAM (P) LTD.

OOPPOOTTIL BUILDINGS, K.K. ROAD,KOTTAYAM - 686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.A JACOB.

2 MR.PHILIP C JACOB OOPPOOTTIL HOUSE, OLD BAZAR, KOTTAYAM - 686001.

BY ADVS.

SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)

SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM - 686001.

2 COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695002.

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

4 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ECONOMIC AND REVENUE SECTOR AUDIT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st petitioner is a company engaged in the business of processing of Latex and the 2^nd petitioner is the shareholder of the company. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners challenging Exts.P1 and P2 notices under Sec.25A of the Kerala Value Added Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'KVAT') and Exts.P5 and P6 are the assessment orders issued based on the said notices.

2. The main ground on which the challenge is against those notices/assessment orders are that, the same are barred by limitation as contemplated under Sec.25 of the KVAT, as the period of five years expired from the date of the relevant assessment years, as on the date of Exts.P1 and P2 notices.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners' brought the attention of this Court the decision rendered by a Division Bench in State of Kerala Vs. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd in O.T Rev. No. 106/2021 wherein the question regarding the applicability of period of limitation contemplated under Sec.25, in respect of the proceedings initiated under Sec.25A KVAT was considered. After detailed discussions it was held that, even in respect of proceeding under Sec.25A, the limitation contemplated under Sec.25 is applicable and therefore, any assessment beyond the period of limitation are not legally sustainable.

4. In the light of the legal propositions laid down by this Court Chowdhary's case cited supra, assessment orders in this writ petition are to be interfered with. The assessment years pertain to which Exts.P5 and P6 orders were issued, are for 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Exts.P1 and P2 are the notices issued under Sec.25A which are dated 19.08.2020. Going by the period of limitation contemplated under Sec.25, the same expired on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 respectively.

Therefore, since the Exts.P1 and P2 notices were issued only on 19.08.2020, in the light of principles laid down by this in the decision referred to above, the said notices and the consequential assessment orders as evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6 are hit by limitation. Therefore in such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P1, P2, P5 and P6.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE SM/21.06 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9999/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.08.2020 ISSUED U/S. 25 A OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH AUDIT OBJECTION FOR THE AY 2009-10.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.08.2020 ISSUED U/S. 25 A OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH AUDIT OBJECTION FOR THE AY 2010-11.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION (WITHOUT ANNEXURES), DATED 10.09.2020 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE AY 2009-10.

EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION (WITHOUT ANNEXURES), DATED 1.10.2020 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE AY 2009-10.

EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)

FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER THROUGH ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ON 23.02.2021 FOR THE AY 2009-10.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION