The Asst.Commissioner Of State ... vs The Asst.Commissioner Of State ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2271 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

   WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

                RP.No.957 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2528/2020

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2528/2020(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):

      1        THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (WORKS CONTRACT)
               STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR,
               TAX TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, KARAMANA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002

      2        THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT)
               STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR,
               TAX TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, KARAMANA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002

      3        THE STATE OF KERALA,
               REPREENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

      4        SECRETARY,
               STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
               GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

      5        DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
               ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639

      6        VILLAGE OFFICER,
               KEEZHUPARAMBA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639

               BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

RESPONDENTS:
               KAMMATHUKUTTY P.K.
               PROPRIETOR, P K K CONSTRUCTIONS,
               PEZHUNGADAN, KOLATHIKKEL,
               KEEZHUMPARAMBIL POST, AREACODE,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639



               GP SMT JASMINE MM

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.957 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2528/2020

                                 2



                               ORDER

Dated this the 20th day of January 2021

C.M.Appl.No.1/20 for condonation of delay in filing this

review petition is allowed.

The prayer in the application is that there is an error

apparent on the face of record as the notices issued by the

authorities were not under Section 25(1) for the assessment year

2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 which though expired on

31.03.2014, 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2015, but, it was also under

the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act.

Therefore, the writ petition should not have been allowed by

relying upon the ratio culled out in Baiju A.A and others v.

State Tax Officer and others [2020(1) KHC 39]. I am afraid

that the aforementioned argument would not have any force as

this Court, in the judgment dated 23.10.2020 in

W.P(C).28825/14 has already taken note of the provisions of

Section 42(3) and allowed the matter having found both the

notices, under Section 25(1) and section 42(3)not within the

period of limitation. I do not find any error apparent on record in RP.No.957 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2528/2020

view of the decision rendered in the aforesaid judgment.

The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE nak