Vajra Wheel Impex Vs. State tax Officer

In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have laid a challenge on multiple grounds, primarily arguing that Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax (KSGST) Act is ultra vires of the state’s legislative power and asserting that the demand for taxes is barred by the limitation period stipulated under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act. In certain cases, the petitioners have raised both these contentions concurrently. The primary thrust of their argument revolves around the constitutionality and legal validity of Section 174, suggesting that it oversteps the legislative boundaries prescribed for the state. Furthermore, they contend that any demands made under this section are invalid as they fall outside the legally permissible timeframe for such actions, thus rendering the demands unenforceable.

During the proceedings, a consensus emerged among all the counsel representing various petitioners. They collectively acknowledged that the issues brought forth in these petitions have already been thoroughly examined and decisively settled in the precedent established by the judgment dated 11th January 2019 in W.P (C) No. 11335 of 2018 and its connected cases. This prior judgment has provided a comprehensive legal framework and a clear judicial interpretation that addresses and resolves the arguments presented by the petitioners in the current batch of cases.

In the judgment of W.P (C) No. 11335 of 2018, the court meticulously analyzed the constitutionality of Section 174 of the KSGST Act, scrutinizing the legislative competence of the state to enact such a provision. It also examined the applicability of the limitation period under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act, determining whether the demands made were legally sustainable within the prescribed timeframe. The court’s findings in that judgment were unequivocal, affirming the state’s legislative power to enforce Section 174 and clarifying that the demands made under this section were not barred by the limitation period. This judgment set a definitive legal precedent that squarely addresses the grounds of challenge brought by the petitioners in the present cases.

Given the binding nature of the judgment in W.P (C) No. 11335 of 2018, this court finds no compelling reason to diverge from the established legal reasoning and conclusions therein. The issues raised by the petitioners have been extensively deliberated upon and resolved in the earlier judgment, leaving little room for reinterpretation or deviation. As such, the current batch of writ petitions is subject to the same judicial scrutiny and outcome as the referenced case.

In conclusion, the court, recognizing the thoroughness and binding authority of the earlier judgment, dismisses the writ petitions brought forth by the petitioners. The legal principles and findings established in the judgment dated 11th January 2019 in W.P (C) No. 11335 of 2018 are applied to the present cases, ensuring consistency and adherence to the judicial precedent. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed, reaffirming the constitutionality of Section 174 of the KSGST Act and upholding the validity of the tax demands made within the permissible limitation period as stipulated under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. This decision underscores the importance of judicial consistency and the adherence to established legal standards in the adjudication of such matters, providing clarity and certainty in the application of the law.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: