Invalid second assessment order cannot stand when the earlier assessment for the same year remains in force.
Where an earlier assessment order for the same assessment year remains unaltered, the assessing authority cannot validly issue a second assessment under the same provision, as that would create mutually inconsistent and unenforceable orders; the later assessment was treated as non est in law. The Court did not decide the maintainability of recalling the earlier assessment by rectification, but preserved the taxpayer's ability to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against that earlier order within the stipulated time. The writ challenge therefore failed on the relief sought, while the later assessment could not survive in law.
Issues: (i) Whether a second assessment order for the same assessment year could be sustained when the earlier assessment order had neither been set aside nor modified. (ii) Whether the petitioner could seek recall of the earlier assessment order by invoking rectification, and whether any consequential appellate relief could be granted.
Issue (i): Whether a second assessment order for the same assessment year could be sustained when the earlier assessment order had neither been set aside nor modified.
Analysis: A fresh assessment for the same year was made after an earlier assessment had already attained existence in law. Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 does not authorise the Assessing Authority to issue a second assessment for the same period while the first order continues to remain in force. Permitting such a course would result in mutually inconsistent assessment orders. The second order was therefore treated as one issued without legal foundation.
Conclusion: The second assessment order was held to be non est in law and unsustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could seek recall of the earlier assessment order by invoking rectification, and whether any consequential appellate relief could be granted.
Analysis: In view of the conclusion on the second assessment order, it was unnecessary to adjudicate the maintainability of recalling the earlier assessment under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. At the same time, the Court considered the surrounding circumstances and preserved the petitioner's ability to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the earlier assessment order within a specified time.
Conclusion: The writ petition did not merit interference on the relief sought, but liberty was granted to file and prosecute a statutory appeal against the earlier assessment order within the stipulated period.
Final Conclusion: The writ challenge failed, the later assessment could not survive in law, and the petitioner was left to pursue the ordinary appellate remedy against the earlier assessment if so advised.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier assessment order remains unaltered, the assessing authority cannot validly issue a fresh assessment order for the same assessment year under the same provision, as doing so creates inconsistent and unenforceable orders.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
