A KUNHIKOYA THANGAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges exhibit P4 notice issued by the competent authority calling upon him to file return under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is the admitted situation that the petitioner had not filed returns in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act when the goods in question, namely, a vehicle was brought into the State. Nor did the authorities insist on his payment of tax while registration was granted within the State of Kerala. May be that Section 18 was ignored by the registering authority in the case of the petitioner at that point of time. The impugned notice is issued by the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act noticing that there had been no remittance under the Act.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned notice, urged that going by the provisions in Section 8(5), the impugned notice is time-barred. It is also urged that even if Section 9 is resorted to, the notice is time-barred. For the purpose of considering the submissions, it is necessary to refer to sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Act, which reads as here-under:

(3.) Section 7(1) obliges every person liable to pay tax under the Act to furnish returns within the prescribed period. Section 8(2) provides that if the assessing authority is satisfied of the return so filed, the assessment shall be completed on the basis of the said return. Sub-section (3) of Section 8 provides that if the assessing authority is not satisfied of the return furnished, he shall issue notice calling for materials as are stated in the said sub-section. If a person fails to comply with the requirements of a notice issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 8, the assessing authority can proceed under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 and complete the assessment going by the yardsticks provided in the said sub-section. In so far as taking recourse to Sub-sections (3) and (4) is concerned, Sub-section (5) of Section 8 provides that no order of assessment under Sub-section (3) or Sub-section (4) shall be made after the expiry of three years from the last date prescribed for filing returns of that period. The said sub-section provides that if for any reason such an order of assessment is not made within the period so prescribed, the return filed by the assessee shall be accepted as correct and complete. So much so, the resultant situation arising out of the deemed completion of assessment by virtue of second sentence of Sub-section (5) of Section 8 and the acceptance of the return under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 are not much different. However, in view of the categoric provisions in the second sentence of Sub-section (5) of Section 8, the first sentence of Sub-section (5) of Section 8 has to be incorporated and understood only in cases where a return has been filed. This is essentially the ratio of the decision of this Court in T.M. Kuruvilla v. Assistant Commissioner, (Assessment) IV, Commercial Taxes . Learned Counsel for the petitioner made a very serious attempt to canvas before me that the ratio of the said decision requires reconsideration. For the reasons noticed, I am in complete agreement with the ratio of the decision of this Court in Kuruvilla's case . The challenge of the petitioner against exhibit P4 fails. The same is repelled.