2019 (6) TMI 1304 - HC - GST

Learned Single Judge had omitted to consider and adjudicate upon other grounds raised in the writ petition - Constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act - time limitation - HELD THAT - Issue decided in the case of M/S. SHEEN GOLDEN JEWELS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) -1 AND OTHERS 2019 (2) TMI 300 - KERALA HIGH COURT where it was held that The petitioner s plea is rejected that the State lacks the vires to graft Section 174 into KSGST Act 2017. Remittance of the writ petition for fresh consideration and disposal on the grounds raised other than the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act would serve the ends of justice - The writ petition is restored on the files of this Court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for the year 2008-09 under KVAT Act, constitutional validity of Section 174 of KSGST Act, omission of consideration of limitation under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act in previous judgment.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an assessment order for the year 2008-09 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) and the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST Act). The writ petition was dismissed based on a previous judgment in a connected case. The appellant argued that the previous judgment only addressed the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, while the issue of limitation under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was not considered. The Special Government Pleader acknowledged this omission and informed that several writ appeals related to the previous judgment were pending. The court decided that other questions raised, apart from the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, should be considered separately by the Single Judge. The court concluded that a remand of the writ petition for fresh disposal was necessary, pending the final outcome of the related writ appeals.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment on the writ petition challenging the assessment order. The Registry was directed to restore the writ petition before the Single Judge for fresh consideration, specifically addressing the issues other than the validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act. Any interim stay order in place at the time of the dismissal of the writ petition was to be revived and continued until further notice.