T.S.SALUDEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was running a proprietory trading concern with valid registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act). Due to adversities, the petitioner wound up his business, with intimation to the respondents as evidenced by Exhibit P2. According to the petitioner, after winding up his business, he shifted his residence to Tirupur. Therefore, on the allegation that actual taxable turnover was suppressed in the annual returns submitted by the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, proceedings were initiated under Section 25(1). Accordingly, Exhibits P3 to P3(c) assessment orders were issued with respect to those assessment years. As the demand pursuant to the assessment was not satisfied, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated under Exhibits P4 to P4(c) notices. On getting information regarding initiation of revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P5 representation and thereafter filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exhibits P3 to P3(c) and P4 to P4(c) and for a declaration that the proceedings against the petitioner initiated under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act are illegal, being without jurisdiction and barred by limitation.

(2.) Heard Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.K.Govindan, learned Senior Government Pleader.

(3.) The focus of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the time limit prescribed under Section 25(1), which is five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates. It is contended that the year to which the returns relate being 2005- 2006, 2006-2007, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, Exhibits P3 to P3(c) issued on 19.8.2015 are illegal and unsustainable. It is also contended that the First Proviso to Section 25(1) providing for grant of reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee also stands violated. It is pointed out that in spite of the petitioner having intimated the authorities regarding winding up of his business way back in the year 2013, the notices of hearing were issued in the very same business address. It is submitted that since the notices were not served on the petitioner, he was not aware of the proceedings initiated and order issued u[nder Section 25(1).