TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993. The scope and ambit of the expression assessment pending occurring in the aforesaid proviso came up for consideration in Geo Seafoods v. Additional Sales Tax Officer IV reported in [2000] 119 STC 236 (Ker); (2000) 8 KTR 21. The contention raised was that the expression assessment pending cannot be given a wider meaning even to take in cases where no final orders are passed for an unreasonably long period and by long lapse of time the matter had become stale. In the alternative it was prayed for a declaration that the second proviso to section 17(6) of the Act was unconstitutional and void. In the above decision, the division Bench upheld the first contention. 2.. The Revenue took up the matter before the Supreme Court. While the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the State introduced a further amendment to the Kerala Finance Act, 2000 inserting a new provision as section 17A. The provision reads as follows: 17A. Assessment or reassessment of certain cases treated as pending. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17 or section 18, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, Tribunal or other authority any assessment or reassessment for any ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded the pleadings. So much so, the scope of their writ petitions is limited only to the impact of second proviso to section 17(6) Provided further that all assessments pending as on the 1st day of April, 1993 shall be completed within a period of four years from the date of publication of the Kerala Finance Act, 1993 . Now section 17(6) read with section 17A leaves no room to interpret the provision contained in the second proviso to section 17(6) and the expression assessment pending as limiting its application only to cases which were pending well within a reasonable time and excluding cases which were pending for an unreasonably long period. The relevance of four years in the proviso is that sub-section (6) has provided that Any assessment under this section shall be completed within a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. 4.. Section 17 of the Act did not originally stipulate any period within which the assessments should be completed, as already noted above. The only reference to the time for completion of the assessments at that time was the concept of reasonable time as held by this Court in Iswara Bhat v. Commissioner of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider a case of assessment being completed after 18 years from the year of assessment. None of the developments referred to above was brought to the notice of the Bench. It is seen from the judgment dated March 6, 2003 in State of Kerala v. C.M. Meerannan reported in [2004] 137 STC 304, that the only decision canvassed by the assessee was that of Evergreen Fragrances v. State of Kerala reported in [1993] 90 STC 39. Though the learned Government Pleader seems to have invited reference to the amendment introduced as per section 17A, it appears, in view of the unusually long delay in completing the assessment, that contention is not seen considered. The Bench made a sweeping observation that section 17A also will not save the situation, obviously without considering the scope of the section. Even at the risk of repetition we may state that neither side had brought to the notice of the Bench, the order of the Supreme Court setting aside the judgment in Geo Seafoods' case [2000] 119 STC 236; (2000) 8 KTR 21, and the consequential pendency of those matters before this Court. To examine the position that such a decision rendered without reference to the factual and legal position do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the matter of various assessments pending as on April 1, 1993 and considering the fact that contrary view has been taken by the division Bench in [2004] 137 STC 304 (State of Kerala v. C.M. Meerannan), we feel it would be appropriate that the matter be heard by a larger Bench. 7.. Despite liberty granted and opportunity available to the parties to amend the pleadings incorporating a challenge on section 17A of the Act, as already noted by us, there is no challenge to the amended provision. So much so, what we need to consider is only the effect of section 17A and the impact of observations of the division Bench in Meerannan's case [2004] 137 STC 304. The language used in section 17A clearly means that notwithstanding anything contained in section 17 or section 18 or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or Tribunal or other authority, assessments for any period prior to April 1, 1993 shall be deemed to be pending and the same could be completed within the permitted time. The scope of section 17A was not considered by the Bench in Meerannan's case [2004] 137 STC 304. As a matter of fact, section 17A was not under challenge and it was not also the subject-matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
