PARISONS AGROTECH (P) LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is a registered assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act and the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. This case relates to the assessment year 2003 -04. The assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act in the year in question was completed on 24 -1 -2009 fixing the total and taxable turnover of Rs.19,90,425/ -. Notice dated 10.8.2010 was issued proposing to disallow the claim of stock transfer amounting to Rs.6,38,18,405/ - and to assess the same as interstate sale. In the original assessment exemption was granted to the appellant on the basis of 'F' Forms issued by the consignment agent of the appellant. Further notice dated 9.9.2010 was issued purporting to invoke powers under rule 6(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957. The said notices were challenged before this Court. This Court granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice. While so, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued notice to the appellant under section 37 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', proposing to set aside the assessment order. The reason stated was that subsequent to the completion of assessment by the Fast Track Team, invalidation of 'F' Form issued to Sakthi Murugan Trading Company was reported by the Commercial Tax Officer, Tamil Nadu. The appellant sent a reply raising objections, including the jurisdiction of the Commissioner. Thereafter, writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the notice issued by the Commissioner. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Commissioner to consider all the contentions raised by the appellant, including the question of jurisdiction and to pass appropriate orders. On the basis of the same, Annexure -7 order was passed by the Commissioner. The said order has been challenged in this appeal.

(2.) THE following questions of law are raised in this appeal: -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of assessment was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Based on subsequent material which were not within the knowledge of the assessing authority at the time of completion of the assessment, it is impermissible for the Commissioner to pass Annexure -VII order. The learned counsel points out that Annexure -2 and Annexure -3 notices were already issued and the Commissioner could not invoke suo motu powers under section 37 of the Act. Based on very same material relied on in the reassessment proceedings, parallel proceedings cannot be instituted. It is also contended that the proceedings are barred by limitation.