Sangeetha Jewellery VS State Tax Officer

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27023/2018 challenges the judgment of the Single Bench dated 12th February, 2019. Ext.P1 notice of pre-assessment, a focal point in the writ petition, questions the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘KSGST Act’). Key contentions include challenges against Ext.P3.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27023/2018 is disputing the judgment rendered by the Single Bench on 12th February 2019. The challenge primarily concerns Ext.P1, a notice of pre-assessment, which was the subject of the writ petition. Key objections raised include questioning the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST Act). Additionally, there is contention that Ext.P3, an assessment order, is legally untenable due to its issuance beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 19 of the 101st Amendment of the Constitution, as well as being barred under provisions of the KVAT Act 2003.

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27023/2018 challenges the judgment of the Single Bench dated 12th February, 2019. Ext.P1 notice of pre-assessment was contested in the writ petition, primarily questioning the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘KSGST Act’). Among other issues, it was argued that the Ext.P3 order proposing assessment was unsustainable because it exceeded the statutory time limits outlined in Section 19 of the 101th Amendment of the Constitution and was also barred under provisions of the KVAT Act 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge, who relied on a previous ruling of this court in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer (IB)-I.

the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Section 174. The petitioner challenges the judgment dated February 12, 2019, issued by a Single Bench in W.P.(C) No. 27023/2018. Ext.P1, a notice of pre-assessment, was the subject of dispute in the writ petition, primarily questioning the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act. Additionally, the petitioner contested Ext.P3, an assessment order, arguing it was invalid due to exceeding the statutory limitation under Section 19 of the 101th Amendment of the Constitution and barred under provisions of the KVAT Act 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge, who relied on a previous judgment in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer(IB)-I. In this writ appeal, it is argued that the dismissal was erroneous as the prior judgment addressed only the constitutional validity.

Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27023/2018 contests the Single Bench’s 12th February 2019 judgment. The challenge revolves around Ext.P1 notice of pre-assessment, primarily questioning the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘KSGST Act’). Among other issues, the petitioner argues that Ext.P3 order of assessment is unsustainable due to exceeding the limitation period under Section 19 of the 101th Amendment of the Constitution and provisions of the KVAT Act 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge, who relied on a previous court judgment in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer (IB)-I. The appeal argues that this dismissal was erroneous, asserting that the earlier judgment only addresses the constitutional validity of Section 174, neglecting other grounds related to limitation.

petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27023/2018 challenges the judgment of the Single Bench dated 12th February, 2019. Ext.P1 notice of pre-assessment was contested in the writ petition, primarily questioning the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘KSGST Act’). Additionally, the petitioner argued that Ext.P3 order of assessment was unsustainable due to its issuance beyond the period stipulated under Section 19 of the 101th Amendment of the Constitution and barred under provisions of the KVAT Act 2003. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge, relying on a precedent set in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer (IB)-I. In this writ appeal, it is argued that the dismissal was erroneous because the earlier judgment only addressed the constitutional validity of Section 174, neglecting other challenges related to the limitation issue raised by the petitioner. Upon reviewing the writ petition, it is clear that various other grounds related to the limitation issue were indeed raised by the petitioner. Thus, it is apparent.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27023/2018 seeks to overturn the judgment issued by the Single Bench on 12th February, 2019. Ext.P1, a notice of pre-assessment, was challenged in the writ petition primarily on grounds questioning the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘KSGST Act’). Additional contentions were raised, including challenges against Ext.P3, an assessment order, asserting that it exceeded the statutory limitation period defined under Section 19 of the 101th Amendment of the Constitution and was also barred under provisions of the KVAT Act 2003.

The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Judge, citing a precedent set by this court in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer (IB)-I, which addressed the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act. However, in this writ appeal, it is argued that the dismissal was erroneous as the previous judgment only covered the constitutional aspect and did not consider other challenges related to the limitation issue.

Upon reviewing the writ petition, it becomes evident that the petitioner had raised multiple grounds concerning the limitation period. The writ petition was disposed of without a thorough consideration of these arguments on their merits. Consequently, it is deemed appropriate to remand the matter back to the Single Bench for a comprehensive review of these contentions.

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 27023/2018 has contested the judgment issued by the Single Bench on 12th February 2019. The challenge primarily concerns Ext.P1, a notice of pre-assessment, which questions the constitutionality of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KSGST Act). Additionally, the petitioner argued that Ext.P3, an assessment order, was invalid due to exceeding the statutory limitation periods outlined in Section 19 of the 101st Amendment of the Constitution and the provisions of the KVAT Act 2003.

The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, relying on a previous ruling in M/s Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Tax Officer(IB)-I. In this appeal, it is contended that the dismissal was incorrect as the earlier judgment only addressed the constitutional validity of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, overlooking other challenges related to the limitation period.

Upon reviewing the writ petition, it became evident that the petitioner had raised several other grounds concerning the limitation period, which were not adequately considered on their merits. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Single Bench for a thorough consideration of these contentions.

As a result, the writ appeal was allowed, and the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 27023/2018 dated 12th February 2019 was overturned. The writ petition is reinstated before the court, specifically for the Single Bench to address the issues related to the limitation period raised against the assessment. Any interim stay granted during the writ petition’s pendency will be reinstated until further court order.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: