PARISONS FOODS (P) LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions have been filed by the petitioners pointing out that the observation made by this Court in 'paragraph 12' of the common judgment dated 12.04.2017 to the effect that the petitioners had admitted that Rule 6 (5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules did not stipulate any limitation and in the said circumstances, it was open for the authorities to bank upon the provisions under the KGST Act, the KVAT Act and the Rules thereunder, to have the assessment finalized, is not correct.

(2.) According to the review petitioners, Rule 6 (5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules itself stipulates the period of limitation as 'one year', having used the expression "previous year". According to the review petitioners, Rule 6 (5) of CST (Kerala) Rules prescribes that the assessment carried out in any year could only be in relation to the preceding year, by virtue of which, the assessment has to be made within a period of 'one year' from the last day of the year to which the assessment relates. It is further contended that the words "or the year concerned" used in the latter part of Rule 6(5) is with regard to a belated return filed by the assessee. As it stands so, by virtue of the specific limitation stipulated under Rule 6 (5) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, which according to the review petitioners is 'one year'; the authority cannot take a recourse to the provisions of the KGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder for enlarging the period of limitation and to have the assessment under the CST Act finalized.

(3.) Heard Mr. P. Gopinath Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and Sri. C.K. Govindan, the learned Special Government Pleader [Taxes] in detail.