Limitation for escaped turnover reassessment cannot be extended for initiation; remand also cannot widen new issues later.

Proceedings to assess escaped turnover must be initiated within the five-year limitation under the Kerala VAT Act; an extension provision for completing assessment does not save a notice issued after that period. The belated reassessment notice was therefore invalid. Where original notices were issued within limitation and the assessment was remanded, the authority could proceed only on the matters already covered by those notices. Fresh notices issued after limitation could not add new instances of escaped turnover or expand the reassessment beyond the original scope. The remand did not revive the power to enlarge the inquiry. The reassessment was confined to the timely notices, and the later expansion was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings for escaped turnover could be validly initiated after expiry of the five-year limitation period under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, notwithstanding Section 25B and the third proviso to Section 25(1); (ii) Whether, after remand of an assessment and expiry of the original limitation period, the assessing authority could issue fresh notices and enlarge the reassessment beyond the matters covered by the original notices.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings for escaped turnover could be validly initiated after expiry of the five-year limitation period under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, notwithstanding Section 25B and the third proviso to Section 25(1).

Analysis: Section 25(1) requires the assessing authority to proceed to determine escaped turnover within five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates, and the controlling requirement is initiation of proceedings within that period. The extension mechanism in Section 25B and the third proviso addresses completion of assessment, not commencement of reassessment proceedings. Since the statute did not prescribe any extendable period for initiating the reassessment in the manner attempted, a notice issued after expiry of the limitation period could not be saved by an extension provision meant for completion of assessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice issued beyond the limitation period was invalid and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether, after remand of an assessment and expiry of the original limitation period, the assessing authority could issue fresh notices and enlarge the reassessment beyond the matters covered by the original notices.

Analysis: Where the original notices had been issued within limitation and the assessment was remanded, the authority could proceed only on the matters already put to the assessee within the original notices. Fresh notices issued after the limitation period could not introduce new instances or enhanced escaped turnover not earlier intimated. The remand did not revive a dead cause of action or authorise expansion of the reassessment beyond the original field of inquiry.

Conclusion: Fresh reassessment notices were unsustainable to the extent they travelled beyond the original notices issued within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on the question of limitation in part: the belated reassessment notice was quashed, and the reassessment on remand was confined to the issues already covered by the original timely notices.

Ratio Decidendi: A limitation provision governing initiation of reassessment proceedings cannot be enlarged by an extension clause that applies only to completion of assessment, and remand does not permit introduction of new escaped-turnover issues after the limitation period has expired.

---