PARISONS FOODS (P) LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common thread connects all these cases and hence they have been grouped together and heard accordingly. The question to be considered is, whether the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act ['CST Act' in short] could be completed by the authorities of the Department of Commercial Taxes of the State availing the extended time for the relevant year, in terms of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act/Rules ['KGST Act/Rules' in short], tracing the source of power to Section 9 (2) of the CST Act, Rule 6 (5) of the CST [Kerala] Rules, Section 17 of the KGST Act, Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act [KVAT Act in short] and the relevant Rules thereunder.

(2.) The appellant in the Writ Appeal is a limited Company engaged in the manufacture of refined, bleached and deodorised palm oil [RDB Palm Oil] and a registered dealer on the rolls of the second respondent for the purpose of assessment under the KGST Act, CST Act and KVAT Act. In respect of the assessment year 2003-04, returns were filed by the assessee, disclosing a total interstate sales turnover of Rs. 77,77,79,4446.50 and claimed exemption on the turnover of Rs.77,08,88,957.81, being consignment sales. It is stated that though returns were filed within the prescribed period of CST Act and CST (Kerala) Rules, the appellant was asked to produce the books of accounts for the year 2003-04 only on 27.05.2009. It was thereafter, that Ext. P1 pre-assessment notice dated 30.05.2009 was issued under Rule 6 (5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules by four members of the 'Fast track team' under Section 17D of the KGST Act. On receipt of Ext.P1, the appellant submitted Ext.P2 reply dated 15.06.2009, whereupon Ext.P3 fresh reassessment notice dated 212009 was issued, which was followed by Ext. P4 revised pre-assessment notice dated 201.2010. Contending that all the aforesaid proceedings were hopelessly barred by limitation, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4832 of 2010.

(3.) The main contention raised before the learned single Judge was that, the course stipulated under Section 9 (2) of the CST Act is subject to other provisions under the CST Act and Rules made thereunder. Invoking the power under Section 13 (3) and (4) of the CST Act, the State of Kerala formulated CST (Kerala) Rules. Though no specific time limit is prescribed under Section 6 (5) of the CST Rules, it has to be completed within reasonable time. Maximum period for completing the re-assessment under the CST Act, as stipulated under Rule 6 (7)/6(8) is 'four' years and under such circumstances, it is contended that the original assessment should have been completed within the maximum period of 'four' years under Rule 6(5) as well. In other words, the maximum period of 'four' years stipulated under Rule 6(7) of the CST (Kerala) Rules was sought to be read into Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules. It was accordingly, that interference was sought for, seeking to set aside Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4 notices and all further proceedings. After hearing both the sides, the learned single Judge, adverting to the relevant provisions of law and the judicial precedents in the subject matter held that, in so far as there was no time limit under Rule 6(5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, the request made by the appellant, to read time factor in respect of reassessment under Rules 6(7) and 6(8) of the Rules, into Rule 6(5) was not liable to be acceded to, and that Section 17 of the KGST Act would come to the rescue of the authorities of the Commercial Taxes Department. Section 17 of the KGST Act, as amended by the Finance Act 2009, has extended the time to complete assessment in question upto 31.02010 and this being the position, Ext. P1, P3 and P4 notices were well within time. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file objection to Exts. P1, P3 and P4 notices and raise all available contentions. This, in turn, is under challenge in the Appeal.