Reasonable time limit controls CST final assessments; notices issued after seven to eight years were held unsustainable.

Assessments under Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 cannot be sustained on indefinite delay merely because the rule contains no express time limit. Reading Rule 6(5) with Rules 6(7), 6(8) and 6(9), the Court noted that the scheme contemplates definite limitation periods for related reassessment and rectification powers, so the final assessment power must still be exercised within a reasonable time. Notices issued after about seven to eight years were held to be far beyond that standard, and the assessments were vitiated by unreasonable delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessments under Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 could be sustained when initiated after an unduly long delay and, if no express limitation is prescribed, whether the power must still be exercised within a reasonable period.

Analysis: Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 enables recourse to the State sales tax machinery, but Rule 6(5) contains no express time limit for final assessment after the close of the year. The rule, when read with the scheme of Rule 6(7), Rule 6(8) and Rule 6(9), shows that the legislature contemplated definite limitation periods for reopening, under-assessment and rectification. The absence of an express period in Rule 6(5) does not authorise indefinite delay. The governing principle is that where no period is prescribed, the authority must act within a reasonable time, and the Court found the notices issued after about seven to eight years to be far beyond such reasonable period. The Court also followed its earlier view that the limitation adopted from the State sales tax regime was in any event exceeded on the facts.

Conclusion: The assessments were vitiated by unreasonable delay and the challenge to the limitation objection failed against the Department; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---