9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard Mr V K Shamsudheen, learned Senior Government Pleader and Mr Harisankar V Menon for parties. 2. A common identical question arises for consideration in the subject appeals. The State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Department, represented by its Officers/Revenue is the appellant. The respondents are individual and independent dealers registered under the KVAT Act. The judgment under appeal reads as follows: "It is agreed by the Counsel on either side that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Baiju A A and others v. State Tax Officer [2020 (1) KHC 39]. Accordingly, following the said judgment, the writ petition is allowed by quashing Ext.P2 assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be substituted; (ii) for the third proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely: "Provided also that the period for proceeding to determine any assessment including those subjected to extension under section 25B which expires on 31st March 2017, shall be extended up to 31st March, 2018."; 4. In the cases on hand one has to examine whether the notices issued are within the period of limitation stipulated by the amended provision and also before a right accrued in favour of the dealer. Even assuming that Baiju A A case was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Justice S V Bhatti) was a party, still, if the notice was issued within the period of limitation, then it cannot be quashed by refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction to issue a reassessment notice on or before 31.03.2020. The period of limitation is changed with effect from 01.04.2017. Therefore, as on the date, when the period is enlarged from 5 years to 6 years, the dealer does not have a vested right or accrued interest vis-à-vis the reassessment procedure under Section 25. 6.1 When the provision is amended enhancing the period of limitation from 5 years to 6 years, the issuance of notice is well within the jurisdiction, and no exception could be taken. The argument of the respondents is accepted by this Court then, the amendment made through Finance Act 11/2017 is made more prospective than what is intended by the Legislature and the judgments of this Court. The subtle attempt made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
