2022 (11) TMI 1272 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court grants appellants' appeal, allowing them to file appeals before Appellate Authority within specified timeframe.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -III, SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE OF KERALA, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) Versus B. MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR PROPRIETOR, MS. PRASANTHI CASHEW COMPANY, MARTIN GEORGE, ROOPAM CONSTRUCTIONS, V.C. CONSTRUCTIONS, TARA EXPORTS

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -III, SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE OF KERALA, THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) Versus B. ... Issues:1. Applicability of the principle laid down in Baiju A A v. State Tax Officer.2. Interpretation of the amended provision under Section 25 of the KVAT Act.3. Determination of the period of limitation for issuing reassessment notices.4. Whether the Amending Act is prospective or retrospective.Analysis:Issue 1: Applicability of the principle laid down in Baiju A A v. State Tax OfficerThe judgment under appeal acknowledged that the issue involved was covered in favor of the petitioner by the decision in Baiju A A v. State Tax Officer. The counsel for the appellants argued that the notices issued were within the period of limitation stipulated by the amended provision and before a right accrued in favor of the dealer. The counsel contended that if the notice was issued within the limitation period, it cannot be quashed by merely referring to the principles laid down in Baiju A A case. The court emphasized the importance of considering whether the notices were issued within the prescribed time frame.Issue 2: Interpretation of the amended provision under Section 25 of the KVAT ActThe court analyzed the amended provision under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, which extended the period for determining assessments. The court scrutinized the timeline for issuing reassessment notices and the impact of the amended provision on the rights of the dealers. It was argued that the amendment made through the Finance Act was intended to be prospective and not retrospective, contrary to the argument presented by the respondents.Issue 3: Determination of the period of limitation for issuing reassessment noticesThe court examined specific cases where reassessment notices were served to dealers for different assessment years. The court assessed whether the notices were issued within the revised period of limitation as per the amended provision. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for issuing such notices and the implications of the amended legislation on the reassessment process.Issue 4: Whether the Amending Act is prospective or retrospectiveThe court addressed the argument raised by the respondents regarding the prospective application of the Amending Act from 01.04.2017. The court disagreed with this argument, stating that it went against established principles of statutory construction. The judgment highlighted that the amendment extending the period of limitation to six years was applicable to the subject assessment years, and the respondents did not have a vested right or accrued interest against the reassessment procedure under Section 25.In conclusion, the court set aside the judgments under appeal and granted the dealers/respondents the liberty to file appeals before the Appellate Authority within a specified timeframe. The court excused any delay caused during the pendency of the appeal and directed that the appeals, if filed, should be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.