Atlas Gold Super Market VS State Of Kerala 

The case under review, W.P.(C) 31972/2018, involves a petitioner contesting a judgment that dismissed their initial writ petition. The respondents in this case are the same individuals or entities named as respondents in the original writ petition.

The crux of the matter revolves around notices marked as Exts.P4 to P8, which proposed the re-fixation of payment of compounded tax under Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘KVAT Act’. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged these notices on the grounds that the proceedings were initiated beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act in one of the cases. Additionally, they argued that similar proceedings concerning previous years were already under dispute before the court, with interim orders issued regarding their operation.

In essence, the petitioner is questioning the legality and procedural fairness of the notices proposing the re-fixation of tax payments, citing both the timing of the proceedings and ongoing legal challenges related to previous years. The outcome of this case hinges on whether the court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments and decides to overturn the previous judgment dismissing the writ petition.

In the case of W.P.(C) 31972/2018, the petitioner is contesting a judgment that dismissed their writ petition. The respondents in this case are the same as those in the original writ petition. The petitioner challenged notices (Exts.P4 to P8) proposing refixation of payment of compounded tax under Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), arguing that the proceedings were initiated beyond the time limit specified in Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act in one instance. Additionally, they contended that similar proceedings for previous years were already under challenge before the court, with interim orders issued regarding their operation. Furthermore, the appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act (KSGST Act) in the writ petition.

The writ petition was dismissed alongside other cases, with the court holding that the issues raised were already settled against the petitioner by a previous judgment in W.P.(C) 11335/2018 and related cases dated January 11, 2019. However, the appellant’s counsel argued that the judgment in W.P.(C) 11335/2018 only addressed the validity of Section 174 and did not consider other grounds raised in the writ petition. This point was not contested by the Special Government Pleader representing the respondents. It was also noted that several writ appeals stemming from the judgment in W.P.(C) 11335/2018 had been admitted by the court, indicating that the issue was still pending consideration before a Division Bench.

Given these circumstances, further actions in the case are anticipated.

In W.P.(C) 31972/2018, the petitioner contested a judgment that dismissed their writ petition, with the respondents being the same as in the original case. The core issue revolved around notices (Exts.P4 to P8) proposing a refixation of payment of compounded tax under Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner argued that these proceedings were initiated beyond the time limit prescribed by Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, and also pointed out ongoing challenges to similar proceedings from previous years. Additionally, the petitioner contested the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act (KSGST Act).

However, the writ petition was dismissed alongside other cases, citing that the matter had already been settled against the petitioner by a prior judgment in W.P.(C) 11335/2018 and related cases from January 11, 2019. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the previous judgment only addressed the validity of Section 174 and failed to consider other grounds raised in the writ petition, a fact acknowledged by the respondents’ counsel. Moreover, several writ appeals stemming from the earlier judgment were already being considered by a Division Bench.

Considering these circumstances, the appellate court deemed it necessary to remit the writ petition for fresh consideration, particularly regarding issues beyond the validity of Section 174 of the KGST Act, to ensure justice. Therefore, the writ appeal was allowed, and the earlier judgment of the Single Judge was set aside. The writ petition was reinstated for reconsideration on the points mentioned, and the registry was instructed to assign it to the relevant Single Judge for further proceedings.

Furthermore, any interim orders in effect at the time of the dismissal of the writ petition were to be reinstated and continued until further notice.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: