Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1160 - KERALA HIGH COURTTime Limitation - Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act - further amendment made by introduction of a proviso extending the time for completion of assessment first in the year 2010 and then regularly extended in the subsequent years - Held that:- Notices in all the cases coming under Group-A, were issued by the respective Assessing Authorities, after the expiry of 5 years from the last date of the assessment year. Later, there was a proviso introduced extending the period for completion of assessment till the end of the year. These amendments were made in the successive years after 2010, the benefit of which was claimed by learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for sustaining the notices issued - the action initiated by the Department after the period of limitation provided, by issuance of notices under Section 25(1) cannot be sustained. Introduction of Section 25B in the KVAT Act by the Kerala Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.4.2013 - Held that:- There is no reason to find the invocation of Section 25B, to be proper, after the period of limitation provided under Sections 24 and 25 has expired. The same is also hit by limitation. The power of the legislature to make an amendment, with retrospective effect, is undisputed but the requirement is that unless the same is expressed in clear language or implied, without any scope for doubt, then the amendment would only be prospective. We are of the opinion that when there is a substitution, unless the same is expressed to be prospective the Courts could always interpret it to be retrospective, looking at the scheme of the enactment, the purpose and object of the amendment, especially when the amendment by substitution, was intended at removing an obvious anomaly or correcting a blatant error or obliterating an absurdity or bringing it in consonance with any other law or the Constitution. The subject substitution which we are concerned with, relating to limitation, is not retrospective neither by reason of express words nor on grounds of intendment. Limitation, though procedural in nature, any action taken after its expiry, creates disabilities and obligations. The right accrued to an assessee, after the expiry of the period of limitation, not to be assessed or re-assessed can be meddled with only by an amendment, expressed or implied to be retrospective. Power of the legislature to make laws prospectively and retrospectively which included the subsidiary or auxilary power to validate laws - Held that:- When a particular statute is declared invalid, the legislature has the power to suitably amend the law by use of appropriate phraseology, rectifying the defects and removing the inconsistency pointed out by the Court. In that context the legislature also could validate the actions taken under the earlier statute as if the defects pointed out never existed; which cannot be termed as an incursion on the judicial power. The amendment by substitution in the present case, extending the period of limitation from 5 years to 6 years to be not applicable to those assessments which stood completed and the 5 year period for re-opening of assessment under Section 25(1) stood expired. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|