M/S. George Michael Associates vs The State Tax Officer (Works ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1307 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 28037 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

          M/S. GEORGE MICHAEL ASSOCIATES,
          T.C.13/109(2), NALUMUKKU,
          PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, RAVINDRA GEORGE
          PEREIRA.

          BY ADVS.
          G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)
          AKHIL SURESH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT),
          KSGST DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

    2     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE),
          KSGST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL SQUAD-IV, PUBLIC OFFICE
          BUILDINGS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

    3     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES,
          SECRETARIAT, MAIN BLOCK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

          BY SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 28037 OF 2021

                                   2


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging an

order of assessment issued in respect of assessment year

2012-13. The assessment order was issued with the date

15.04.2021 and it is impugned on the ground that it is issued

beyond the period of limitation specified in Section 25(1) of

the KVAT Act, 2003.

2. When this matter is taken up for consideration

today, it is common case that the issue now stands covered

by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in State Tax

Officer, Ernakulam & Others v. Baiju A.A. & Others

[Manu/KE/2522/2022].

3. Considering the fact that the issues appear to be

covered by the law laid down in Baiju A.A (supra), the

impugned assessment order in this case is set aside and the

matter is remanded for the consideration of the 1 st

respondent, who shall consider the question as to whether the

order of assessment can be justified in terms of the law laid

down by this Court in Baiju A.A (supra). The 1st respondent

shall endeavour to pass fresh orders, after taking into WP(C) NO. 28037 OF 2021

consideration the decision referred to above, within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. The petitioner shall mark appearance before the 1 st

respondent at 11.00 AM on 10.02.2023, either in person or

through the authorised representative. The 1st respondent

shall, thereafter, pass fresh orders as directed above and

within the time specified above.

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE DK WP(C) NO. 28037 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28037/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 15.03.2021 ISSUED U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAIL REPLY DATED 13.04.2021 AGAINST EXBT-P1 NOTICE FOR 2012-13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.04.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 PASSED U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, BY 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONER.