Writ Appeal Success: Order Requiring 25% Tax Deposit Overturned Due to Expired Limitation Period Under KVAT Act.

The Writ Appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order requiring the appellant to deposit 25% of tax dues. The Court recognized the assessment order under the KVAT Act was issued beyond the six-year limitation period specified in Section 25(1). Consequently, recovery proceedings were stayed, and the writ petition was remitted for further consideration on its merits.

---

---

Issues involved:
The legality of assessment order u/s KVAT Act, applicability of limitation period u/s 25(1) of KVAT Act.

Judgment Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of assessment order under KVAT Act
The Writ Appeal was filed against an interim order directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the tax dues assessed under Ext. P2 order. The appellant failed to make the deposit within the given time, resulting in the vacation of the stay. The issue raised in the writ petition concerned the legality of Ext. P2 assessment order, contending that it was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period under the KVAT Act. The assessing authority had passed the order based on an audit objection under Section 25A of the KVAT Act, which raised questions about overriding the limitation period under Section 25(1) of the Act. The Court acknowledged that the issue of limitation was pending consideration before another Single Judge. Given that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period of six years from the relevant assessment year, the appellant established a prima facie case for a stay pending disposal of the writ petition.

Issue 2: Applicability of limitation period under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act
The Court found that the express provisions of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act clearly state that the limitation period for assessment completion is six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Since Ext. P2 order was passed beyond this period for the 2016-17 assessment year, the appellant was granted relief by setting aside the direction to deposit 25% of the tax dues. The writ petition was remitted back for further consideration on merits, with recovery proceedings against the appellant kept in abeyance until the disposal of the petition.

Conclusion:
The Writ Appeal was allowed, and the impugned order directing the deposit of 25% of tax dues was set aside. Pending recovery proceedings against the appellant were stayed until the disposal of the writ petition, allowing for further consideration on the legality of the assessment order and the applicability of the limitation period under the KVAT Act.

---