✦ Kerala High Court

M/S.THE MATHRUBHUMI PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO LTD v. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER(SPECIAL CIRCLE I)

EASWARAN S2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
EASWARAN S

Outcome

Allowed

writ petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. I have heard learned counsel Sri.K.P.Abdul Azeez appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sayed M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018 -3- The issue as to whether the notice is barred by limitation and also whether an…

Judgment

BY ADVS. K.P.ABDUL AZEES SMT.T.ARCHANA RESPONDENTS: ASISTANT COMMISSIONER(SPECIAL CIRCLE I) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673006. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 1 2 BY ADV. : SRI.SAYED.M.THANGAL, G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018 -2- JUDGMENT The present writ petition is filed by M/s. Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited challenging Ext.P2 Notice of re-opening of the assessment under the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The main point raised in the writ petition is the limitation with regard to the re- opening of such assessment. According to the petitioner a period of limitation is provided under the provisions of the Act and therefore the action of the respondents in issuing the notice to re-open the assessment already completed in the year 2011-2012 cannot be justified.

Operative part

2.

I have heard learned counsel Sri.K.P.Abdul Azeez appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Sayed M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018 -3- The issue as to whether the notice is barred by limitation and also whether an assessment could be re- opened beyond the statutory time limits under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in State of Kerala Vs. Periyar Plywoods (2020 KHC 781). On a consideration of the materials on record, I find that the principles laid down by the Division Bench will clearly apply to the facts of this Case. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Ext.P2 Notice under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is quashed. No order as to costs. Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE WP(C) NO. 33814 OF 2018 -4- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33814/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32110246822/11-12 DATED 24.02.2015, PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.32110246822/2011-12 DATED 20.07.2018, ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.27842/2010 DATED 10.06.2013. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL 1018/2013 DATED 11.07.2013. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2083/2015 DATED 12.11.2015.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 — s. 9(2); Central Sales Tax Act — s. 9(2).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Kerala High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments