TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard of Indirect Taxes And Customs. JUDGMENT DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 29.09.2020 in WP(C). No. 12941 of 2020 to the extent the said judgment did not deal with the arguments of the petitioners regarding the merits of an assessment order that was impugned in the writ petition. The circumstances under which this appeal came to be filed before this Court are as follows; 2. The appellant herein had approached this Court through WP(C). No. 12941 of 2020 impugning an assessment order that was passed against it, inter alia on the ground that the said assessment order was barred by limitation. The essence of the contention raised before the writ court was that Section 25(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amended provisions of the KVAT Act. On a consideration of the said submission on behalf of the appellant/State, the Division Bench found that the amendment to Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act had come about in 2017 itself when the time limit for issuance of notice was enlarged from five years to six years, and the notice issued to the appellant herein was within the six year period of limitation that was operative for the assessment year 2013-14. The Division Bench therefore found that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge suffered from an erroneous appreciation of facts and therefore, proceeded to allow the writ appeal by dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein on the ground of limitation. While dismissing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt constituted a binding precedent for the purposes of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 6. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader on the merits of the issue raised in the writ petition, and proceeded to hold that in view of the clear finding in the order of the Supreme Court that affirmed the view of the High court of Andhra Pradesh in the judgment referred above, SIM cards, rechargeable coupons, fixed monthly charges and value added services (towards SMS, ringtones, download music etc.) could not be termed as "goods" for the purposes of the KVAT Act. The writ petitions were therefore allowed and the orders impugned in those writ petitions were q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot considering the contentions of the appellant on the merits of the assessment order, was in fact filed belatedly. However, the circumstances under which the challenge to the impugned judgment arose needs to be noticed. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant by finding solely on the aspect of limitation. Since, the appellant was not aggrieved by the said judgment that allowed the writ petition, it did not have to file a writ appeal at that stage. The occasion for filing this writ appeal arose only when the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, that decided only the issue of limitation, was taken in appeal before a Division Bench of this Court, and the said Divisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istinction between the telecommunication service rendered by the appellant, and those which fell outside the purview of sales tax. The learned Special Government Pleader contends, therefore, that the facts in the case of the appellant herein are clearly distinguishable. He relies on the judgments in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 2006 1383 (SC), Tata Consultancy Services v. State of A.P. [(2005) 1 SCC 308], CST v. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd. [(2023) 5 SCC 469], State of Kerala v. Sathyam Audios [(2024) GSTR 464], State of Kerala v. V. C. Vinod (2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11394), Samir Kumar Majumder v. Union of India and others [(2024) 16 SCC 738], M/s. Gojer Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Shri Ratan Lal Singh [(1974) 2 SCC 453], Kunhayam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....forementioned binding judgment of the learned single judge. In our view, when a final decision on the merits of the issue already holds sway, we would be perfectly within our jurisdiction to allow this appeal that impugns a judgment of the single judge to the extent that it did not consider the challenge to the assessment order on merits, and quash the assessment order impugned in the writ petition. 13. As for the contention of the State that the principles of merger would prevent the appellant herein from mounting a belated challenge against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the principles of merger would have no application in a situation such as the present. As already noticed, the earlier Divi....