TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T] . In view of the judgment, the amendment, extendimg period of limitation has been held to be prospective in nature and Assessment proceedings ,initiated after expiry of 5 years, were held to be beyond limitation. The question which is to be seen by this Court is that the amendment of Section 42 brought vide notification dated 13.11.2016 having a retrospective effect, whether period of limitation as provided in Section 25 or rule 58 will be applicable and would give cause to the State to issue notice by commencing the proceedings or otherwise. The time limits specified in Rule 58(20) of KVAT Rules offer a safe guarding factor to define the limits of power under Section 42(3) of the Act. Meaning thereby, it would not be proper to re-op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ie., 5 years as the amendment in 2017 increasing the period from 5 to 6 years is prospective in nature. In support of the aforementioned contention, judgment of this Court in MCP Enterprises (M/s.) and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (2020 (1) KHC 127) has been referred whereby provisions of Section 42(3) of Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were also dealt in extenso. It was held Section 42 of the Act was amended through a Notification dated 13.11.2016 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2005. Even if there is no limitation for taking action under Section 42(3), the limitation as prescribed in the provisions of Section 25(1) was to be taken and accordingly the notices qua assessment orders were quashed being barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etrospective effect, whether period of limitation as provided in Section 25 or rule 58 will be applicable and would give cause to the State to issue notice by commencing the proceedings or otherwise. 5. The judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in MCP Enterprises case (supra) was regarding amendment to Section 42 by inserting sub Section 3 having been given retrospective operation with effect from 1.4.2005. It was observed that retrospectivity would have the effect of removing the basis of the judgment rendered in case of such assessees in the context of limitation under the provisions of Section 25 of the KVAT Act. Once there was an absence of power other than mentioned in Section 25 of KVAT Act, the revenue could not re-open ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) fails to file audited accounts referred to in sub-section (1), or (ii) fails to file revised annual return rectifying the mistake or omission, along with the audited statement of accounts and certificate or if the variance in the audited statement of accounts and certificate or if the variance in the audited statement of accounts with the returns is not satisfactorily explained in the reconciliation statement prescribed, or (iii) fails to file the annexures, statements, certificates, declarations, including the statutory declarations to be filed under the Central Sales Tax act, 1956 which are required to be filed along with the returns to prove the correctness of the concessional rate of tax, exemptions and exports claimed in the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
