9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the Deputy Commissioner of the State Tax, State GST Department, Kerala, Special Circle Palakkad, proposing taxable turnover at Rs. 15,92,00,540/- for the purposes of GST. 2. The assessment order was completed in respect of the financial year 2004-05 under Section 17(D) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act). The said assessment order passed under Section 17(D) of the KGST Act came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P(C.) No. 35601/2009. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for a fresh order. Paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment dated 14.12.2009 passed in W.P(C.) No. 35601/2009 would read as under; "2. In view of the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the assessment under Section 17(D) of the KGST Act, in respect of the same. Ext. P4 notice dated 02.12.2021 came to be issued to the petitioner to examine the accounts, documents and registers for the year 2004-05 and the petitioner was directed to produce those documents on 16.12.2021. The petitioner filed a reply to the said notice dated 16.12.2021. The petitioner took a plea in his reply that financial year 2004-05, the original assessment order was set aside by the High Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2009 passed in W.P(C.) No. 35601/2009. By the said judgment, time frame of two months time was granted for redoing the assessment. Almost 12 years had elapsed since the order passed by the High Court and therefore, the petitioner was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be passed as mentioned above. 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning Ext. P8 order. This Court, vide interim order dated 28.01.2022, proceedings pursuant to Ext. P8 order shall not be finalised without getting further orders from the Court. The petitioner was directed to appear on 03.02.2022 before the 4th respondent. 5. Sri. A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the High Court that fixed the time limit for finalising of redoing the assessment, issuing notice after 12 years from the date of the order is against the time prescribed under Section 17D of KGST Act. It is further submitted that though it was not original assessment but the revised assessment ought to have been completed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t when the petitioner had supplied the copy of the judgment dated 14.12.2009. The said judgment dated 14.12.2009, it was for the petitioner to supply copy of the judgment. 8. I am of the view that the limitation prescribed for passing the assessment/revised assessment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the high Court had set aside the original assessment and remanded the matter back to assessing authority to redo the assessment. Therefore, the proposed assessment is neither the original assessment nor the revised assessment and the limitation prescribed for assessment and revised assessment would not be applicable to the facts of the case. The question whether on remand also the limitation period prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
