Kerala High Court
State Tax Officer vs Harit Havens (P) Ltd on 6 January, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:265
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 16TH POUSHA, 1946
WA NO. 1295 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.06.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.12808 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
1 STATE TAX OFFICER
WORKS CONTRACT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, MATTANCHERRY,
KOCHI 682002.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
HARIT HAVENS (P) LTD.
EMERALD HILLS, CHALAKKAL, MARAMPILLY P.O.,
ALUVA EAST, PIN - 683 107.
(REPRESENTED BY SMT.USHA VASUDEV, MANAGING
DIRECTOR).
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.01.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1295/2020
2
2025:KER:265
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the Revenue aggrieved by the
judgment dated 29.06.2020 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.
(C)No.12808 of 2020.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ
appeal are as follows:
The respondent - writ petitioner had approached this Court
through the writ petition aforementioned impugning Ext.P5
assessment order on the ground that the same was barred by
limitation. The essence of the contention raised before the Writ Court
was that Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
(hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act') had provided for a period
of six years for completion of assessment and since the assessment in
question was for the assessment year 2012-13, the notice issued to
the respondent - assessee in the instant case was beyond the period
of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act and
consequently, the assessment order that was impugned in the writ
petition had also to be seen as one passed without jurisdiction.
2025:KER:265
3. The learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in
the writ petition found that the issue as regards the time limit within
which a notice had to be issued for reopening an assessment under
Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act had been amended to 6 years from 5
years through the amendment effected in the year 2017. It was found
however that the notice in the instant case had been issued beyond
the period of limitation contemplated under the statute as it stood
during the relevant time and hence the impugned assessment order
could not be legally sustained. The writ petition was therefore
allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside Ext.P5 order of
assessment.
4. Before us, it is the submission of the learned Government
Pleader - Sri.Shamsudheen V.K., that the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition on the mistaken assumption that the notice
issued to the respondent - assessee for reopening an assessment of
2012-13 was belated. He points out that the notice under Section
25(1) of the KVAT Act was issued within a period of six years on
05.02.2019. He also refers to the judgment dated 22.11.2024 in
W.A.No.1753 of 2020 of the Division Bench, of which one of us (Dr.
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J) was a party, to contend that the
Division Bench had considered a similar case and had allowed the
writ appeal by noticing the erroneous assumption of facts by the
2025:KER:265
learned Single Judge. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment reads as
follows:
"6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find force
in the submission of the learned Government Pleader, for we
find that the assessment year in question is 2013-14 under the
KVAT Act. The KVAT Act was amended in 2017, whereby the
period of limitation for re-opening the assessment was
enhanced from five years to six years. No doubt, in those
cases where the erstwhile period of limitation of five years had
already expired before the date of the amendment of Section
25(1) in 2017, the Revenue would not be permitted to re-open
assessments that had been settled, through a fresh notice
issued thereafter invoking the six-year period of limitation. In
the instant case, however, we find that the assessment year in
question is 2013-14 and the limitation period for re-opening
assessment under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was six years.
The notice under Section 25(1) having been issued on
06.02.2020 was well within the period of six years
contemplated under Section 25(1) as it stood then. It was only
on account of the erroneous assumption of the learned Single
Judge that the writ petition came to be allowed on the ground
of limitation."
5. Taking note of the said submission of the learned
Government Pleader and finding that in the instant case also the
amendment to Section 25(1) had come about in 2017 itself and the
notice issued to the respondent - assessee in the instant case was
within the six year period of limitation that was operative for the
assessment year 2012-13, we deem it appropriate to set aside the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge that finds to the
contrary, and allow the writ appeal by dismissing the writ petition.
2025:KER:265
6. We make it clear that, it will be open to the respondent -
assessee to approach the First Appellate Authority under the KVAT
Act in a challenge against Ext.P5 assessment order that was
impugned in the writ petition by filing a statutory appeal within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the
appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, it shall be treated as filed
within time for the purposes of the KVAT Act.
The writ appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
ACR
