AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 882
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act", for short). The assessing authority has passed regular assessment orders for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1990-91. Aggrieved by those orders of assessment, the assessee had preferred the first appeals before the first appellate authority as provided under the Act. The first appellate authority, by its order dated February 25, 1997, has allowed the appeals and has remanded the matters to the assessing authority to redo the assessments in accordance with law. The order passed by the first appellate authority reads as under: "In the result the appeals are allowed and impugned orders are remitted back for fresh disposal according to law." For....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rit petition, the petitioner had filed his detailed objections/reply by his letter dated January 4, 2005 to the notice issued by the assessing authority dated December 20, 2004. After considering the objections so filed, the assessing authority has once again issued notice dated January 14, 2005 (exhibit P8 notice) and, in that, again had directed the assessee to produce the books of account for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1990-91. In so far as the grounds urged by the petitioner with regard to the period of limitation, the assessing authority had only stated that: "...time-bar does not apply to cases of revision of assessments pursuant to remand orders of the Tribunal". (emphasis supplied by us) Aggrieved by exhibit P8 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Per contra, Sri Muhammed Rafiq, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, would submit, that, the time starts ticking for the purpose of computing limitation only from the date on which the orders are passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the assessing authority was justified in observing that the limitation prescribed under sub-section (8) would not apply to such of those cases where the matters were pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the observations made by the apex court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 119 STC 505 and also the observations made by the apex court in the case of Union of India v. West Coas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for any reason, the assessing authority is prevented from passing an order of assessment by virtue of an interim order passed by a superior forum or a competent authority by granting interim order of stay, then the limitation prescribed under sub-section (8) of section 17 gets excluded till the interim order is vacated/modified. In the instant case, as we have already noticed, exhibit P3 order came to be passed by the first appellate authority in the appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1990-91. This order was passed on February 25, 1997. In the normal course, the assessing authority should have completed the assessments on or before February 25, 2001 or within four years from the date of receipt of the copy ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned counsel, in our opinion, is without any merit or substance. Mere pendency of an appeal, without there being any interim order which prevents the assessing authority to complete the assessment, would not come in the way of the assessing authority in complying with the orders and directions issued by the first appellate authority. The learned counsel for the Revenue has relied on the observations made by the apex court in the case of Kunhayammed [2000] 119 STC 505. That was a case where the apex court had to decide the concept of "merger" theory. While doing so, the apex court, in conclusion, has stated that: (page 528) "Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, Tribunal or any other authority....