STATE OF KERALA Vs. K.LINK HEALTHCARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four revisions are by the State and three by the assessee. OT(Rev) Nos.46 of 2020, 31 of 2020 & 48 of 2020 are by the State against the common order of the Tribunal in the assessment years 2009-2010, 2010- 2011 and 2011-2012. The assessee's revision for the said years are OT(Rev) Nos.48 of 2020, 62 of 2020 & 63 of 2020 respectively. OT(Rev) Nos.53 of 2020 is a revision by the State on a further reopening of assessment carried out under Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for brevity, 'the Act'] for the year 2009-2010.

(2.) In OT(Rev) Nos.53 of 2020, the only question is as to the limitation found by the Tribunal. The assessment was set aside on the ground that the notice was issued after the limitation prescribed under Section 25 of the Act. The assessment year is 2009-2010 and the limitation provided was five years from the last date of the year of assessment. The limitation was also with respect to the initiation of proceedings ie., issuance of a notice. The notice was issued on 30.07.2015, while the limitation stood expired on 31.03.2015. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, especially going by the decision of this Court in Commercial Tax Officer v. Najeem [2018 (3) KLT 877]. OT(Rev) Nos.53 of 2020 hence stands rejected.

(3.) OT(Rev) Nos.46 of 2020, 31 of 2020 and 48 of 2020 filed by the State raise the common question of deletion of surcharge on sales turnover as has been levied under the Kerala Surcharge on Taxes Act , 1957 by Section 3(1A) . A Division Bench of this Court affirmed the decision of a learned Single Judge reported in Fab India Overseas (P) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner [2018 (3) KHC 314] [W.A. No.1993 of 2018]. The provision was held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 301 read with Clause (a) of Article 304 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. OT(Rev) Nos.46 of 2020, 31 of 2020 and 48 of 2020 hence stands rejected, affirming the order of the Tribunal and answering the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, respectfully following the Division Bench judgment afore-cited.