2025 (9) TMI 1601 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Section 17D non obstante lacks express time limit; reasonable limitation fixed by Section 17(6) five-year benchmark

Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Palakkad, The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) -1, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) -II, State of Kerala, Rep. By Chief Secretary To Government Versus Hakeem K., S/O Late U. Ahammed Kabeer

HC held that Section 17D's non obstante clause contains no express time-limit for fast-track assessments, so Section 17(6) cannot be directly applied; ... Time limitation prescribed u/s 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for finalisation of assessments under Fast track method - assessment u/s 17D of the Act is required to be completed within the period prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act or not - no period prescribed for finalisation of assessments u/s 17D of the Act - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 17D, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader, start with a non obstante clause. The provisions do not speak about the initiation of assessment proceedings within a particular time or finalisation thereof. By virtue of the non obstante clause, there cannot be any reference made to the provisions of Section 17(6) of the Act also. When that be so, it is clear that the respondents could not contend that the finalisation of assessments by Exts.P8 and P9 orders was beyond the period prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act. In this connection, a Division Bench of this Court in Betty Sebastian [2018 (12) TMI 1082 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has categorically found that “a provision for limitation would definitely be in conflict with the scheme of Section 17D”. This Court in ST.Rev.No.11 of 2021, by its judgment dated 24.10.2024, had also followed the dictum laid down in Betty Sebastian, holding that there is no limitation prescribed under Section 17D of the Act for finalisation of assessment steps. Whether the Department would be entitled to finalise the assessment at its sweet will? - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT] has held that 'It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.' Similarly, in Union of India v. City Bank [2022 (8) TMI 1107 - SUPREME COURT], the Apex Court has held that when a statute does not prescribe a time limit for initiating an action, it needs to be done within a reasonable time. Thus, it is trite law that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions of the statute. In that view of the matter, the assessment has to be initiated at least with reference to 5 years as prescribed under Section 17(6) of the Act. In such circumstances, the initiation and finalisation of the assessment were barred by limitation. There are no merit in the appeal - appeal dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether Section 17D of the Act prescribes any time limit for initiation or finalisation of assessments by the Fast Track Team. 2. Whether assessments completed under Section 17D are subject to the limitation period prescribed by Section 17(6) of the Act. 3. If Section 17D contains no express time limit, whether the Department must nevertheless complete assessments within a reasonable period; and if so, what that reasonable period is in light of the statutory scheme. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Whether Section 17D prescribes any time limit for finalisation of assessments? Legal framework: Section 17D sets out a 'Fast Track method of completion of Assessment' beginning with a non obstante clause ('Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law...'). It prescribes constitution and functioning of a Fast Track Team, summary disposal, restrictions on re-opening, procedure for hearings, unanimous decisions, and appeal conditions, but contains no express timeline for initiation or completion of assessment. Precedent treatment: Division Bench authorities of the High Court have held that a provision for limitation would conflict with the scheme of Section 17D, and subsequent recent decisions followed that interpretation. Interpretation and reasoning: The non obstante opening of Section 17D and the absence of any express temporal provision mean the provision does not incorporate the specific limitation language of Section 17(6). Consequently, direct application of Section 17(6)'s timelines to Section 17D assessments is not warranted as a matter of statutory construction. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 17D contains no express period of limitation for fast track assessments and thus cannot be directly read to include Section 17(6)'s prescribed time limit. Conclusion: Section 17D does not, on its face, prescribe a specific time limit for finalisation of assessments by the Fast Track Team. Issue 2: Whether Section 17D assessments must be completed within the period prescribed by Section 17(6)? Legal framework: Section 17(6) prescribes a statutory period (originally four years, later five) within which assessments are to be completed; Section 17D commences with a non obstante clause purporting to operate notwithstanding other provisions. Precedent treatment: High Court Division Bench decisions have held that Section 17D's scheme conflicts with a provision for limitation and that Section 17(6) does not apply to fast track proceedings. The opinion of the Apex Court on analogous principles about reasonable time where no limitation exists is treated as binding guidance. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court holds that because Section 17D contains a non obstante clause and lacks an express limitation provision, there can be no direct reference to Section 17(6) for fast track assessments. Reliance on Section 17(6) to invalidate a Section 17D assessment is therefore incorrect as a matter of statutory construction. However (see Issue 3), absence of express limitation does not mean unfettered power. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 17(6) does not automatically apply to assessments completed under Section 17D; the latter operates notwithstanding other provisions including Section 17(6). Conclusion: Section 17D assessments are not governed by Section 17(6) by direct incorporation; Section 17(6)'s prescribed period cannot be mechanically invoked to vitiate a Section 17D assessment. Issue 3: If no express limit under Section 17D, must the Department complete assessments within a reasonable period and what is that period? Legal framework: Where a statute prescribes no limitation, constitutional and administrative law principles require statutory powers to be exercised within a reasonable time; what is reasonable depends on the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities it creates, and the statutory scheme. Precedent treatment: The Court relies on Apex Court authority that statutory authorities must act within a reasonable period when no limit is prescribed, and on High Court authorities applying that principle to revenue assessment statutes and to Section 17D specifically, warning against condoning inordinate delays inconsistent with 'fast track' aims. Interpretation and reasoning: Section 17D's object - 'fast track' completion - and its non obstante character imply that the power must be exercised quickly and not after unreasonably long delays. The Court adopts the established approach of fixing reasonable periods with reference to analogous statutory timeframes and the statutory scheme; consequently, it reads a requirement that initiation/finalisation be effected within a period comparable to Section 17(6)'s five years (or the period appropriate to the statute) so as to give effect to the fast-track object and protect assessee rights. The Court therefore treats initiation/finalisation outside that reasonable period as barred by limitation in practice, even if not by literal incorporation of Section 17(6). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Absence of express limitation in Section 17D does not permit perpetually deferred action; assessments under Section 17D must be initiated and completed within a reasonable period calibrated by the statutory scheme (here, at least by reference to the five-year period under Section 17(6)). Obiter - Specific application to extensions enacted by Finance Acts need not be decided where reasonable-period analysis is dispositive. Conclusion: The Department must finalise Section 17D assessments within a reasonable period; such reasonable period is to be ascertained by reference to the statutory scheme and comparable timelines (here, the five-year benchmark under Section 17(6)), and assessments initiated/finalised beyond that reasonable period can be held barred. Overall Conclusion and Disposition The Court concludes that although Section 17D contains no express limitation and is not directly subject to Section 17(6), the statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable time consistent with the fast-track purpose; on that basis the assessments in question, initiated/finalised beyond the reasonable period (measured with reference to the five-year benchmark), are barred and relief granted below was correctly directed. The Court declines to decide the applicability of temporal extensions enacted by subsequent Finance Acts because the reasonable-period finding is dispositive.