High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE v. STATE OF KERALA: - TRC No. 97 of 2002  RD-KL 17283 (13 September 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMTRC No. 97 of 2002()
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE
1. STATE OF KERALA:
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent :SPL.GOVT.PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.T.R.C.No. 97 of 2002
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2007.
O R D E RH.L.Dattu, C.J. This revision petition arises under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The assessment year in question is 1984-85.
2. The assessee, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the
Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in T.A.No.617 of
1999 is before us in this tax
revision case. The assessee has raised the following questions of law for our
(i). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in the absence of giving retrospective effect to the proviso added through Finance Act 10 of 1997 as well as the Kerala General Sales Tax (Amendment Ordinance) Act 13 of 1998 and in terms of the terminology in the Finance Act and the Ordinance the benefit accrued on the assessee on the ground of limitation can be taken away? (ii). Whether the benefit accrued through the parent section as introduced through Finance Act 13 of 93 as Sub section (6) of Section 17 can be taken away through the substitution and whether the authorities below are justified in rejecting the contention of the revision petitioners based on the said amendment? (iii). Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the authorities are justified in completing the assessments disregarding the statutory audit by the auditors of the department TRC.No.97 of 2002 -2- of Co-operation in the light of Sub section (4A) of Section 17 of the KGST Act? (iv). Whether on the facts and circumstance in the case, the authorities are justified in rejecting the claim on the ground of non- production of Form 25 when all other corresponding statutory documents had proved beyond doubt that the sale was effected within the State? On these facts and circumstances of the case, has not the Tribunal erred in law in not set asiding orders under challenge?
3. In our view, the questions of law framed by the assessee is no
more debatable in view of the orders passed by
this Court in the case of Geo
Sea Foods V. Addl. Sales Tax Officer (2006 (1) KLT 72 (F.B.). In the said
decision, this Court
has observed as under:
"The language used in S.17A clearly means that notwithstanding anything contained in S.17 or S.18 or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or Tribunal or other authority, assessments for any period prior to 1-4-1993 shall be deemed to be pending and the same could be completed within the permitted time. In view of S.17A of the Act, the concept of reasonable period for completing assessments for the period prior to 1-4-1993 is no more of any relevance or significance. The period is as prescribed in the Act. Under S.17A all assessments prior to 1-4- 1993 and not completed as on that date shall be deemed to be pending as on 1-4-1993 and it is open to the Revenue to complete such assessments in accordance with law."
4. In view of the law declared by this Court in the above-said TRC.No.97 of 2002 -3- decision, the questions of law framed by the assessee requires to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.