Back
SUPREME COURT
B. V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thrissur, Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interpretation of limitation period in kvat act (Para 4 , 8 , 14) |
| 2. arguments for and against the meaning of 'proceed to determine' (Para 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 3. contextual meaning of legislative provisos (Para 13 , 18 , 21) |
1. Delay condoned.
2. Delay of 98 days in Diary No(s).11977/2022 and 308 days in Diary No(s). 15704/2022 condoned.
3. Leave granted in Diary No(s).11977/2022 and Diary No(s). 15704/2022.
4. In this batch of cases, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), State of Kerala and the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Thrissur, Kerala have assailed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 05.07.2018. By the said judgment, the Kerala High Court, by following the judgment of the Division Bench in Tirur Medical Stores vs. State of Kerala , 1978 KLT 415, as reaffirmed by Full Bench in Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), 2015 (4) KLT 516 , quashed the notices assailed in the Writ Petitions as being beyond the limitation period prescribed under Sub-Section (1) of S.25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act , (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act' for the sake of convenience).
5. The central issue of controversy bet
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
