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
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
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.
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
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
