Limitation for escaped assessment notices under Kerala VAT applies to initiation, while provisos cannot create a fresh completion period.

Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was explained as prescribing a five-year limit only for initiation of escaped-assessment proceedings by notice, not a separate limit for completing the assessment. The third proviso to Section 25(1), read with Section 25B, was treated as governing extension of completion time only where proceedings had been validly initiated within time, and not as creating a fresh or independent limitation period or enlarging the main provision. The settled rule that a proviso cannot expand the scope of the principal enactment was applied, so the notice issued within the statutory period was not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was barred by limitation, and whether the third proviso to Section 25(1) read with Section 25B provided a time-limit for completion of assessment.

Analysis: Section 25(1) was held to prescribe only a five-year limit for initiation of proceedings to determine escaped assessment by issuance of notice, and not a limit for concluding the assessment. The third proviso was treated as dealing with extension of completion time in cases where an assessment could not be completed within the period specified, but it was not construed as creating an independent limitation for completion or as extending the time for initiating proceedings after the statutory period had expired. Section 25B was read as enabling extension of the period of completion only where proceedings had already been validly initiated, and the settled rule of construction was applied that a proviso cannot expand or alter the substantive scope of the main provision.

Conclusion: The notice having been issued within the limitation period under Section 25(1), the proceedings were not time-barred. The third proviso and Section 25B did not invalidate the initiation of proceedings or create a separate limitation for completion.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment notice failed, and the writ petition was rejected on limitation grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive provision fixes limitation only for initiation of proceedings, a proviso dealing with completion of assessment cannot be construed to create a fresh or independent period of limitation or to enlarge the main enactment.

---