TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts necessary to decide the issue involved in the writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner is a Public Limited Company manufacturing cotton yarn and cotton yarn waste. The petitioner is registered under the KGST Act and CST Act. Assessment for the year 2000-2001 under the CST Act was completed as per Ext.P1 order dated 21.03.2005. The tax due from the petitioner was assessed as Rs. 4,32,707/-. Interest to the tune of Rs. 4,06,745/- was also demanded from the petitioner. The petitioner appealed before the Deputy Commissioner and the petitioner's appeal was allowed on 19.06.2008. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the Revenue appealed before the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal, as per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot stand the scrutiny of law. Secondly, the petitioner urged that an assessment is to be completed within four years under the CST Act. If an assessment is set aside and remanded for reconsideration, only the balance period is available to the assessing authority and the assessing authority does not get a fresh period of four years. Therefore, when the original assessment itself for 2000-'01 was to be completed by 31.03.2005, only ten days remained to complete the assessment proceedings after remand. Therefore, Ext.P7 notice issued under Section 17D on 30.05.2014 after the said period, is ex facie illegal and unsustainable. 6. The Senior Government Pleader for Taxes opposed the writ petition. According to the learned Senior Governm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ph 5 of Ext.P2, are as follows:- "We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both parties. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in TRC No.200 and 206 of 2008 dated 22nd May, 2009 in respect of the same assessee for the previous years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 has restored the assessment order by reversing the orders of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. The contention of the assessee is that the factual position in 2000-01 is entirely different from the previous years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and hence the above court decision is not applicable to the year 2000-2001. It is a fact that the contentions raised by the assessee as well as the arguments put forth by the revenue have not been considered by....