Kerala High Court
State Tax Officer vs Sarvotham Satheesh Prabhu on 1 August, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
1
W.A.No.1789 of 2020 2025:KER:57305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1789 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2020 IN WP(C) NO.21873 OF
2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
-----------
APPELLANTS:
1 STATE TAX OFFICER,
1ST CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE JAWAHAR NAGAR,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN
RESPONDENT:
SARVOTHAM SATHEESH PRABHU,
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE SATHEESH PRABHU,
RESIDING AT 19/1515 A, NIRMAL, CHERROR PARAMBU,
CHALAPPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 002.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
SRI.C.S.ARUN SHANKAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.A.No.1789 of 2020 2025:KER:57305
JUDGMENT
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
The Revenue has filed the captioned writ appeal challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2020 in W.P(C) No.21873 of 2020, by which, Ext.P4 assessment order has been set aside, essentially on the ground of limitation.
2. The respondent is stated to be the son and legal heir of the assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, the 'Act'). The respondent herein had filed the writ petition seeking to challenge the completion of assessment as above with respect to the assessment year 2013- 14, on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground of jurisdiction insofar as the assessment has been completed in the name of the deceased assessee, who had passed away earlier to the initiation of assessment steps/completion of the assessment. The contention raised by the respondent was to the effect that the assessment ought to have been completed within a period of 5 years under Section 25(1) of the Act, and since the period of 5 years had come to an end by 31.03.2019, the initiation of 3 W.A.No.1789 of 2020 2025:KER:57305 assessment steps by the notice dated 22.11.2019 was barred by limitation. It was also contended that the deceased assessee had passed away as early as on 22.11.2016, as evidenced by Ext.P1 death certificate and hence the initiation of the assessment proceedings/completion against the deceased was without any justification. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground of limitation with reference to the principles laid down by this Court in Baiju A.A. and others v. State Tax Officer [2020(1) KHC 39] and MCP Enterprises and others v. State of Kerala [2020 (1) KHC 127].
3. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. As regards the contention regarding limitation raised by the respondent, this Court notices that the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act, true, provided for initiation of assessment steps within a period of 5 years from the end of the assessment year. With reference to the aforesaid provisions, the initiation of assessment proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 notice on 22.11.2019 was beyond the period prescribed since the 5 year 4 W.A.No.1789 of 2020 2025:KER:57305 period has come to an end by 31.03.2019. However, by the Finance Act, 2017, the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act were amended with effect from 01.04.2017 by substituting the words "6 years" as against the words "5 years". In other words, the period for initiation of steps for finalization of assessment has been enhanced to 6 years by the aforementioned amendment. It is to be noticed that the amendment has been effected even before the expiry of the original 5 year period as regards assessment year 2013-14. When that be so, the amended 6 year period would apply for initiation of assessment steps for the year 2013-14. This principle has already been accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1757 of 2020 and connected cases by the judgment dated 03.11.2020. To the same effect is the judgment of another Division Bench in W.A.No.1295 of 2020.
5. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to challenge the completion of assessment on the ground of limitation with reference to the period of 5 years as it originally existed under Section 25(1) of the Act.
5
W.A.No.1789 of 2020 2025:KER:57305
6. Even on the face of the afore, we notice that the assessee-the father of the writ petitioner, has already passed away on 22.11.2016, as evidenced by Ext.P1 death certificate. The pre-assessment notice at Ext.P3 has not been served on the deceased assessee, even as admitted in the assessment order. The assessment order further admits that the notice issued to the dealer has been returned by the postal authorities with the endorsement "expired" and "door locked". In other words, the department was well aware that the original assessee was not alive when the assessment proceedings were initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice. But, even thereafter, the assessment has been finalized, admittedly in the name of the deceased assessee. It is a settled principle of law that no assessment can be finalized in the name of a dead person. A Division Bench of this Court in Binoj N. v. Income Tax Officer [2024 (6) KLT 780] has also held that a notice issued against the dead person, initiating steps for assessment, would not save in the period of limitation. In other words, even if this Court accepts the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that the period of limitation 6 W.A.No.1789 of 2020 2025:KER:57305 applicable would be "6 years", that would not entitle the department to proceed against the respondent herein, insofar as a valid notice has not been served on the respondent within the prescribed period.
In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessment order at Ext.P4 is to be set aside in any event. Resultantly, we find no reason to interfere with the matter, and the captioned writ appeal would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE ln