HABITAT TECHNOLOGY GROUP vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/3169/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008824202012 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the revenue's action in initiating proceedings under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, in the year 2019 for the assessment year 2011-2012 was illegal and erroneous. The court found that the statutory period of limitation, even after an extension to six years, had been exceeded. The court stated that the competency of the officer to issue an assessment order beyond six years was no longer a matter of dispute (res integra). Consequently, the impugned pre-assessment order (Ext.P2) was quashed. The writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that proceedings initiated beyond the statutory limitation period are invalid and liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Habitat Technology Group, represented by its Secretary, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated by the State Tax Officer under the State Goods & Service Tax Department. The proceedings were initiated on February 4, 2019, for the assessment year 2011-2012. The petitioner contended that the initiation of these proceedings was beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The assessment year in question is 2011-2012, and the proceedings were initiated in 2019. The petitioner argued that the period of five years, even if extended by one year to a total of six years by an amendment, was still exceeded. The department's action in issuing a pre-assessment order was therefore considered illegal and erroneous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the revenue, represented by the Tax Officer under the State Goods & Service Tax Department, can initiate proceedings under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, in the year 2019 for the assessment year 2011-2012, when the statutory period of limitation has expired? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings on February 4, 2019, for the assessment year 2011-2012 was beyond the prescribed time limit. They contended that the statutory period of five years, even with an extension of one year making it a total of six years, was exceeded. Therefore, the action of the department in issuing the pre-assessment order was wholly illegal and erroneous. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. It notes that the controversy regarding the competency of the officer to issue an assessment order beyond six years is no longer res integra, implying the revenue may have argued against this point or that the court considered it settled law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 25

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3169 OF 2020(U) PETITIONER: HABITAT TECHNOLOGY GROUP, MAHIMA TOWERS, THODUPUZHA-685 584, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.P.VINOD BY ADVS. SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.M.G.SHAJI SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV SHRI.KIRAN RAMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE TAX OFFICER, WORKS CONTRACT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, IDUKKY AT TAX COMPLEX, KATTAPPANA-685 508

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, IDUKKY AT TAX COMPLEX, KATTAPPANA-685 508

THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002 OTHER PRESENT: GP M.M.JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The short point involved in this case is as to whether the revenue i.e., Tax Officer under the State Goods & Service Tax Department can initiate the proceedings under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the year 2019 i.e., on 04.02.2019, for the assessment year 2011-2012 as the period of five years, though was extended by way of an amendment by another one year, making total of six years, is still beyond that. In such circumstances, the action of the department in issuing the pre- assessment order is wholly illegal and erroneous. The controversy as to the competency of the officer in issuing the assessment order beyond six years is no longer res integra.

For the reason aforementioned, the impugned Ext.P2 is hereby quashed. This writ petition is stands allowed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL vv JUDGE

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED FOR 2011-12 DATED 04.02.2019 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT PASSED FOR 2011-12 DATED 13.03.2019 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION VS THE STATE TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS IN WP(C) NO.21244 OF 2019 DATED 06.12.2019 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED DATED 17.01.2020 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

More judgments on Section 25

All 67 judgments and leading authorities on Section 25 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →