TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal is filed by the State and the impugned judgment disposed of a batch of cases. However, the appeal is with respect to only one case which was categorised as Group-D and disposed of by the learned Single Judge. The issue arising in the writ petition was of the limitation prescribed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 [for brevity "KGST Act"] and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity "KVAT Act"]; for completion of penalty proceedings, under Section 45A and Section 67 of the respective enactments. 2. Section 45A of the KGST Act did not provide for any period of limitation. Section 67 of the KVAT Act, at its inception, provided a limitation period of one year from the date of detection of offence. The same was enha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and that declared by the earlier Division Bench, which binds us. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State would contend that Eastern Ore Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer [(1974) 33 STC 129] and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dhanalakshmi General Stores [(1998) 26 STL 185] were with respect to assessment proceedings and they cannot be equated to penalty proceedings. St.Mary's Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Intelligence Officer [LAWS (KER) 2010-2-75], which was also relied on by the learned Single Judge, did not at all decide any issue on limitation and relegated the petitioner to the statutory remedies. The learned Senior counsel Sri.K.Srikumar appearing for the respondent-assessee, also does not have a case based on an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Customs, though the assessment years were far earlier, of 2003-04 and 2004-05. Exhibit P4 and P4A, hence, does not suffer from the defect of limitation, is the contention. With respect to KVAT regime, it is submitted that in the period when the offence was detected, i.e., after 03.05.2011, there was a limitation of three years as provided under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. However, within the limitation period, the orders at Exhibits P4B and P4C were issued; both again on 05.12.2014 and, hence, not vitiated for reason of limitation alone. The State anchor their submissions on the ground that the detection of offence is on the date of issuance of notice, immediately after the order of the Commissioner of Customs was received. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the proceedings should be completed within a reasonable period. The authorities cannot be left to their sweet will to sit idle after an inspection or after verification of records and initiate proceedings at their own pleasure; to manufacture a ground only of the detection of offence having been made on a later date. We also see from the KGST Act that for re-assessment proceedings; Section 19 provides for a limitation period of five years. Though there is no reference to detection of offence under Section 45A of the KGST Act, for computing the reasonable period, definitely the proceedings could be said to have commenced only on the date of detection of offence as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.385 of 2009. Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h prescriptions of reasonable period; on judicial intervention, when there is no limitation provided in the statute shall not create road blocks at every twist and turn, resulting in the penal provisions being rendered nugatory. 9. Obviously here, the notice was first issued long after the defalcation alleged by the DRI, was brought to the notice of the CTD. But the proceedings initiated by the DRI was pending and the CTD waited for the final result. If the notice has been delayed, as in the present case, where the proceedings were initiated by the DRI in 2006 and the same was concluded only in the year 2011 after which the CTD took out proceedings under Section 45A of the KGST Act and Section 67 of the KVAT Act, then necessarily it woul....