Limitation for reassessment begins with notice, not completion, and out-of-time notices were quashed.

Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was construed to require initiation of reassessment proceedings within five years from the close of the assessment year, because the words "proceed to determine" refer to the commencement of action by notice and not the final completion of assessment. The Court relied on the prior in pari materia interpretation under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and held that subsequent amendments extending time for completion did not change the meaning of the unamended text. It also rejected resort to the mischief rule where the statutory language was clear. Notices issued beyond the five-year period were therefore barred and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 beyond five years from the close of the assessment year were barred by limitation, and whether the statutory words "proceed to determine" referred to initiation of reassessment proceedings or completion of assessment.

Analysis: Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 prescribes a five-year period and uses the expression "proceed to determine" in the context of escaped turnover. The provision was read in light of the earlier in pari materia provision under Section 19 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and the binding Full Bench view approving the earlier interpretation that the expression denotes commencement of proceedings by notice, not final completion of assessment. The Court rejected the contention that subsequent amendments extending the period for completion altered the meaning of the provision, and held that the legislative extension could not override the settled construction of the unamended text. The Court also held that the mischief rule could not be invoked to depart from clear statutory language, and that the legislature, not the Court, must provide any structured time frame for completion of assessment.

Conclusion: The notices issued beyond the five-year period were barred, and the interpretation favouring initiation of proceedings within the limitation period was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded, the learned Single Judge's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed by quashing the impugned notices issued out of time.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory text prescribes a limitation for the authority to "proceed to determine" escaped turnover, the limitation governs initiation of proceedings and not completion of assessment, and clear statutory language cannot be displaced by purposive construction or subsequent amendments that do not alter that text.

---