TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners pointing out that the observation made by this Court in 'paragraph 12' of the common judgment dated 12.04.2017 to the effect that the petitioners had admitted that Rule 6 (5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules did not stipulate any limitation and in the said circumstances, it was open for the authorities to bank upon the provisions under the KGST Act, the KVAT Act and the Rules thereunder, to have the assessment finalized, is not correct. 2. According to the review petitioners, Rule 6 (5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules itself stipulates the period of limitation as 'one year', having used the expression previous year . According to the review petitioners, Rule 6 (5) of CST (Kerala) Rules prescribes that the assessment carried out in any year could only be in relation to the preceding year, by virtue of which, the assessment has to be made within a period of 'one year' from the last day of the year to which the assessment relates. It is further contended that the words or the year concerned used in the latter part of Rule 6(5) is with regard to a belated return filed by the assessee. As it stands so, by virtue of the specific limitation s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n escaped turnover for the purposes of assessment of the same. In the instant case, the assessment for the year 2003-04 is proposed to be carried out in the year 2010 and hence, the assessment is severely belated and cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the CST Act, read with the CST (Kerala) Rules. (C)......................................... Although there is no specific period mentioned in the provisions for completion of the assessment, it is trite that the assessment has to be completed within a reasonable period. The issue as to what is a reasonable period for the purposes of the rules is to be determined from a perusal of the other provisions of the rules and when so read, it would be clear that the assessment has to be completed at least within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. This intention of the legislature can be culled out from a reading of sub clauses (7) and (8) of Rule 6, which speak of completion of re-assessment within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates............................................................................ 6. No case, as now projected in the review p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of re-assessment within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates............................................................................ 8. From the above, it is quite evident that the case now projected by the review petitioner, to the effect that Rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules clearly stipulates the limitation period as 'one year' and that the same was asserted before the Court is not at all correct. Even otherwise, if it was argued, but not considered by the learned single Judge, it was quite open for the assessee to have preferred a review petition before the learned single Judge. Having not raised any such ground, either in the Writ Petition or in the Writ Appeal, the present contention raised by the review petitioner is not liable to be held as sustainable, as there is no error apparent on the face of record. 9. With regard to the pleadings and submissions raised by the review petitioners in R.P. No. 564 of 2017 [arising from W.P.(C) No. 40931 of 2016], it is to be noted that said writ petition was filed in the year 2016, when some modification was made with regard to paragraphs 8 and the ground raised, on comparison with simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the word 'preceding year' as it appears in Rule 6 (5), to contend that the assessment has to be completed within one year. Rule 6 (5), in fact, does no where say that the assessment has to be completed within one year. The said Rule only stipulates the necessity to complete assessment after close of the year. Rule 6 (5) starts with the words after close of the year . It is in the context as to the course to be pursued by the assessing authority, after close of the year, that the expression has been used with reference to the return filed for the preceding year. The Rule also uses the expression 'return or returns' and as to the assessment to be finalized under a single year to determine the tax or tax payable under the Act for the preceding year or for the year to which return submitted relates, as the case may be. The return so filed, as permitted in the Statute, need not necessarily be in respect of the previous year and the thrust of the provision is only with regard to the course of action to be done after close of the year, to complete the assessment, based on the return/returns filed. Under no circumstances, can it be read that Rule 6 (5) stipulates the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
