USHA ARAVIND Vs. THE SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ground taken in the Original Petition is that the proceedings for assessment which related to the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 are considerably delayed. According to the petitioner the proceedings actually commenced with all vigour only towards the end of 1993 and therefore the alleged unreasonable delay in completion of the assessments itself vitiates them. But then it is seen from the orders of assessment Exts. P-14 and P-15 that notices had been issued even in 1984 for production of accounts, though the proceedings in all their vigour started only later in 1993. But apart from all this what is reasonable time within which an assessment should be completed in essentially defends on the statutory provision and the facts. The legislature has now set a time limit for completion of the assessments, by the introduction of sub-s.(6) to S.17 under which an assessment shall be completed within a period of four years of the expiry of the year for which the assessment relates. What is relevant for the purpose of this case is the second proviso thereto which enables all assessments pending as on the first day of April 1993 to be completed within a period of four years from the date of publication of the Kerala Finance Act, 1993. The legislature has taken note of the delay that has occurred in the completion of the assessments and therefore the completion of the assessments which were pending as on 1st April 1993 has to be done within a period of four years from the. date of publication of the Kerala Finance Act, 1993. When the legislature itself has set a time limit for the completion of assessments and permitted the assessments to, be completed within the limit so prescribed in the second proviso to sub-s.(6) of S.17, it is not open to this court to go against the statute and strike down the assessments on the ground of alleged unreasonableness in their completion, thereby cutting down the period prescribed by the statute itself for the completion of such assessments. The assessment in this case is well within the time prescribed by the second proviso to sub-s.(6) of S.17.

(2.) The other question which the petitioner raised was on the allegation that she was a partner of the firm in question only for a few months in 1983 and she cannot be made liable for the tax demanded for the years in question. That is a matter which she should agitate before the appropriate authorities as it is essentially a question of fact. It is for her to bring it to the notice of the authorities concerned to get exoneration from liability if she is entitled to it for any reason. Suffice it to say I do not find any reason to entertain this original petition particularly on the ground of unreasonable delay in the completion of the assessment.