Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47864
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
M/S CHOICE CONSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WORKS CONTRACT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 36431/2016
Notices issued post-appellate remittance are deemed continuations of prior proceedings, avoiding limitation issues.
Headnote:
Limitation - Writ Petition - KVAT Act Section 24 - The court ruled that the notice for assessment issued after an appellate remittance does not breach limitation, emphasizing it was a continuation of prior proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice to produce accounts for assessment under the KVAT Act, claiming it was issued beyond the limitation period, despite prior notices related to the same assessment.
Issues: Whether the notice issued for assessment was barred by limitation since it followed a remittance from appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that notices following appellate remittances are continuations of earlier proceedings and not subject to separate limitation periods.
Final Decision: Writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 notice dated 4/11/2016 by which petitioner is called upon to produce the books of account and other records to complete the assessment under Section 24 of the KVAT Act, 2003 for the assessment year 2009-10. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that Ext.P10 notice had been issued beyond the period of limitation.
2. The facts involved in this writ petition would disclose that the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 notice dated 18/6/2012 well within the period of limitation. The present notice had been issued as a continuation of the earlier proceedings. The facts disclosed that the assessment was completed as per order dated 27/7/2012 pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. Petitioner preferred an appeal and the appellate authority by Ext.P7 order dated 15/7/2014 remitted the matter to consider the issues. Petitioner challenged Ext.P7 order by filing a writ petition which was disposed of on 3/12/2014 as per judgment in WP(C) No. 31597/2014 by which order of remittance has W.P(C) No.36431/16 been upheld. However, direction was issued to finalise the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that thereafter the respondent authority did not complete the proceedings within the aforesaid three months' period and thereafter Ext.P10 had been issued only on 4/11/2016. It is contended that the notice dated 4/11/2016 is a fresh proceedings taken pursuant to the order of remittance and therefore the bar of limitation will apply.
3. Perusal of Ext.P10 by itself would show that it is a continuation of the earlier proceedings by which the order of assessment had been set aside by the appellate authority and remitted back to the assessing authority. Under such circumstances, the ground of limitation will not arise. I do not find any error on the part of the assessing authority in issuing Ext.P10 notice and the contention regarding bar of limitation, if available, can be raised by the petitioner in the assessment proceedings.
Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
