Statutory limitation objection under the KVAT Act required fresh consideration after the writ petition was reopened on remand.

A statutory limitation objection under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 remained undecided in the writ proceedings, because the Single Judge disposed of the matter on a different basis without independently examining whether the assessments were time-barred. As the challenge focused only on limitation and not on the validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper course was to reopen the writ petition for fresh consideration of that issue. The matter was remanded to the Single Judge to decide whether the impugned assessments were hit by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside for want of consideration of the challenge that they were barred by limitation under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders were liable to be set aside for want of consideration of the challenge that they were barred by limitation under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The writ petition had raised a specific contention that the assessments were initiated beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. That question had not been independently adjudicated by the Single Judge, since the writ petition was disposed of on the footing that the matter was covered by an earlier judgment which dealt with a different issue. The appellant did not press the challenge relating to the validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and sought consideration only of the limitation objection under the KVAT Act. In these circumstances, the proper course was to restore the writ petition for consideration of the limitation plea.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Single Judge for adjudication on whether the impugned assessments are hit by Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Final Conclusion: The writ appeal succeeded to the extent that the writ petition was reopened for a decision on the limitation issue, while the earlier dismissal of the writ petition was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a material statutory limitation objection raised in the writ petition has not been adjudicated, the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration on that issue.

---