TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1772
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that Rule 6 (5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules did not stipulate any limitation and in the said circumstances, it was open for the authorities to bank upon the provisions under the KGST Act, the KVAT Act and the Rules thereunder, to have the assessment finalized, is not correct. 2. According to the review petitioners, Rule 6 (5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules itself stipulates the period of limitation as 'one year', having used the expression "previous year". According to the review petitioners, Rule 6 (5) of CST (Kerala) Rules prescribes that the assessment carried out in any year could only be in relation to the preceding year, by virtue of which, the assessment has to be made within a period of 'one year' from the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... virtually conceding that no time limit was specifically stipulated under Rule 6 (5) of the CST [Kerala] Rules; but still, the assessment had to be completed within a 'reasonable time'. The relevant portion of paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition and relevant portion of Ground C raised therein are as follows : "8...................................... Although Rule 6 (5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules does not prescribe any time limit, within which an assessment has to be completed, when read with other provisions in the same rules, it could be reasonably inferred that the period for completion of an assessment under Rule 6 (5) cannot, at any rate, exceed a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. This is b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..................................................................... " 6. No case, as now projected in the review petition, was ever raised or argued by the assessee before the learned single Judge, which led to the judgment dated 10.06.2013 referring to the relevant provisions of law and the judicial precedents cited across the Bar; in turn holding that the Writ Petition No. 4832 of 2010 was devoid of any merit and thus dismissing the same. 7. Coming to W.A. No. 1076 of 2013 filed by the above assessee, the case projected was almost similar as in the writ petition, which is clearly evident from paragraph 7 and Ground D, the relevant portion of which are extracted below : "7...................................... Although Rule 6 (5) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be clear that the assessment has to be completed at least within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. This intention of the legislature can be culled out from a reading of sub clauses (7) and (8) of Rule 6, which speak of completion of re-assessment within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates............................................................................ " 8. From the above, it is quite evident that the case now projected by the review petitioner, to the effect that Rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules clearly stipulates the limitation period as 'one year' and that the same was asserted before the Court is not at all correct. Even otherwise, if it was argued, but no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b clauses 7 and 8' to Rule 6, which speak of completion of re-assessment within 'four years' from the expiry of the year to which tax relates and hence the assessment order in connection with the assessment year 2010 - 11 was quite wrong and without jurisdiction. 10. To appreciate the above contention, it will be worthwhile to go through Rule 6 (5) of the CST [Kerala] Rules, which is reproduced below : "5. After the close of the year the assessing authority shall after such scrutiny of the accounts and after enquiry as he considers necessary satisfy himself that the return or returns filed are correct and complete and finally assess under a single order the tax or taxes payable under the Act for the preceding year or for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the assessment to be finalized under a single year to determine the tax or tax payable under the Act for the preceding year or for the year to which return submitted relates, as the case may be. The return so filed, as permitted in the Statute, need not necessarily be in respect of the previous year and the thrust of the provision is only with regard to the course of action to be done after close of the year, to complete the assessment, based on the return/returns filed. Under no circumstances, can it be read that Rule 6 (5) stipulates the necessity to pass assessment order within 'one year' because of the reference made to the return for the preceding year, as it consciously uses the word "returns" as well, simultaneously refer....