2012 (8) TMI 1056 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules assessments beyond limitation period invalid due to lack of notice, emphasizes following judicial directives

State Of Kerala Versus Abhilash T. Mathew

The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, finding that the assessments under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the year ... - Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the limitation period for completing assessments under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year 1993-94.Issue 1: Limitation under KGST and CST Acts for 1993-94 assessments:The Tribunal reiterated its findings against the Revenue regarding the completion of assessments under the KGST and CST Acts for the year 1993-94 being barred by limitation. The introduction of Section 17(6) of the KGST Act in 1993 imposed a time limit of four years for completing assessments, with a provision for assessments pending as of 1.4.1993 to be completed within four years from the publication of the Kerala Finance Act, 1993. Subsequent amendments extended the limitation period, but the assessments for 1993-94 were completed on 30.7.1999, beyond the prescribed deadline of 31.3.1999. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the assessments were beyond the period of limitation.Issue 2: Extension granted by Deputy Commissioner under Section 17(7) of KGST Act:The Deputy Commissioner's alleged extension of the assessment period under Section 17(7) was done without notice to the assessee and lacked any pending enquiry or investigation against the assessee. The Court emphasized that the power to extend the limitation period for assessments is exclusively conferred on the Legislature and cannot be delegated. The Court concluded that the extension granted did not comply with the necessary requirements and ruled in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the revisions were rejected, answering both questions of law in favor of the assessee.Separate Judgment:The Court expressed distress over the Tribunal's failure to follow specific directions given in a previous judgment, highlighting the importance of adhering to judicial directives to avoid unnecessary remands. The Court emphasized the significance of respecting hierarchical judicial forums' decisions and communicated its concern over the potential impact of disregarding such directions on the judicial system.