Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2023 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 5 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxConstitutional Validity of Entry No.25 of the 6 Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - assessment order, reopening of assessment, barred by limitation or not - time limitation as per Section 12-A(1) of the KST Act - whether the proviso to Section 12-A(2) of the KST Act is applicable to the facts of the instant case? HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 12-A(2) of the KST Act is not applicable to the instant case and the impugned assessment orders are barred by limitation. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was not one of the parties in PRO Lab’s case [[2015 (2) TMI 388 - SUPREME COURT]] and consequently, would not come under the expression ‘assessee’ contained in the proviso to Section 12-A(2). The petitioner can also not be considered, construed or treated as ‘any person’ as contemplated in the said proviso since the same means, only a person who is intimately connected or interlinked or has a nexus to the parties in PRO Lab’s case and not to anyone else, much less, the petitioner herein, who was neither a party to PRO Lab’s case nor had any connection / link / nexus with the parties to the said case; to put it differently, in order to apply the judgment of the Apex Court in PRO Lab’s case, which would enable the respondents to initiate the impugned re-assessment proceedings, pursuant thereto, it is absolutely essential that the petitioner herein has to be ‘any person’ within the meaning of the proviso to Section 12-A(2); it follows there from that if the petitioner cannot be construed, considered or treated as ‘any person’ in terms of the said proviso, the same would be inapplicable to the petitioner and the benefit of exclusion of the period of 8 years prescribed in Section 12-A(1) would not be available to the petitioner. In ITO, Sitapur vs. M/s.Muralidhar Bhagwan Das case [[1964 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]], the Apex Court held that the said proviso would not save the time limit prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act in respect of an escaped assessment of a year other than that which is the subject-matter of the appeal or the revision, as the case may be. It follows that the notice under Section 34(1) of the Act issued in the present case was clearly barred by limitation. In Mysore Cements Ltd., case [[1999 (7) TMI 641 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]], the coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with proviso 12- A(2) of the KST Act, under identical circumstances, held that Section 12-A(2) has extended the time-limit during which the stay was granted by any court or any other authority. It is only the time during which the stay granted is extended. But in a case where the stay is not granted and ultimately the matter is decided against the assessee requiring to make the assessment on the basis of the ultimate order or judgment given then the proviso further extends the time but, if a judgment is given in other case, then it would justify reopening of the assessment only within the time prescribed under section 12-A(1) and if it is in the case of the same assessee or person then, proviso to sub-section (2) of section 12-A thereof extends the time-limit for initiation of the assessment/reassessment of that assessee. The impugned re-assessment orders for the years 1998-99 to 2004-05 dated 15.04.2016 and consequent demand notices dated 15.04.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent at Annexures-K, L, M, N, P, Q and R respectively - petition allowed.
|