Limitation for reassessment under KVAT cannot be extended by proviso; only completion of timely initiated proceedings is covered.

The third proviso to Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act does not extend the limitation period for initiating reassessment of escaped turnover. Read with the main provision, the expression "proceed to determine" governs commencement of reassessment within the prescribed time, while the proviso operates only to regulate completion of proceedings validly initiated under Section 25(1). A proviso cannot be construed to enlarge the limitation fixed by the principal clause or to override the statutory scheme. On that construction, notices issued after the initiation period were invalid and the reassessment notices were quashed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the third proviso to Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act extends the period of limitation for initiating reassessment proceedings for escaped turnover, or whether it only extends the time for completing proceedings already initiated within the main provision.

Analysis: Section 25(1) uses the expression "proceed to determine" in the context of commencing reassessment within the prescribed period from the last date of the relevant year. The third proviso, read in its legislative setting and in light of the successive annual substitutions, serves a different function: it regulates the completion of reassessment proceedings already initiated under Section 25(1). The same expression cannot be given an identical meaning in both places if that would create inconsistency with the scheme of the provision. A proviso is ordinarily meant to qualify or carve out an exception to the main enactment, not to nullify it or extend the limitation fixed by the principal clause. On that construction, the proviso cannot be treated as enlarging the time for initiation of reassessment.

Conclusion: The third proviso does not extend the limitation period for initiating reassessment proceedings. It only operates to regulate the timely completion of proceedings validly commenced under Section 25(1), and the impugned notices beyond the initiation period were rightly quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals fail, and the High Court's decision quashing the reassessment notices on limitation was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A proviso cannot be construed to extend the limitation fixed by the main provision for initiating proceedings, and where the same phrase appears in the proviso, it must receive a contextual meaning consistent with the statutory scheme and the limited office of a proviso.

---