TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ground of the orders passed being vitiated on the ground of period of limitation having expired. The writ petitions were referred to a Division Bench since the question of limitation under Section 67 was pending before us in W.A No.344/2017 which we have decided today. 2. We have noticed in W.A No.344/2017; The Intelligence Officer vs. Mohammed Sameer that under Section 67 initially, at the inception of the KVAT Act, there was a limitation provided of one year which was enhanced to three yeas in 2009 and then later removed from the statute in the assessment year 2014-15. We have also held that even if no limitation is specifically provided in the statute the proceedings should be finalised within a reasonable period. As to reasonable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer sat over it and first issued a notice of penalty against the said Kakku on 30.09.2014. The penalty proceedings against Kakku were concluded by order dated 30.12.2016. Subsequently notices to the alleged purchasers were issued on 23.01.2017, long after the period of limitation that existed at the time of inspection as also the production of books of accounts. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners specifically refer to the declaration in W.A 385/2009 that though the limitation commences only from the date of detection of offence; it should be detected within a reasonable period from the date of verification of records. Especially since the provision did not provide for a specific time within which a notice alleging an offence had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t with in the said order. The said transaction were also with respect to various dealers in and around Thrissur. We also see from the documents read in the order that the summons to the purchase dealers were issued in the year 2012 and 2013, spread over the months December and January to March. Even if the records were produced immediately, considering the volume of records of the various purchasing dealers as also the selling dealer, required to be verified before a specific allegation could be raised, we are of the opinion that there could be no ground of limitation urged in the above cases. The detection of offence against the selling dealer could be the date on which the petitioners could at best plead for the limitation to commence. Th....