Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)

State Of Kerala And Others vs Fr.William Fernandez Etc Etc on 9 October, 2017

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has urged that no satisfaction has been recorded by the prescribed authority showing reasonable grounds to believe that the Assesee or any other person other than the registered person has wilfully failed to apply for registration, though being liable to pay taxes and thus, is required to be proceeded under Section 11(5) for assessment of tax, penalty and interest as well. The requirement of alleging specific acts of wilful violation on the part of the petitioner is completely lacking in the show-cause notice dated 10.05.2019. For the period up to 22.03.2017 i.e. the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8275/2012, the Act of 2011 was not on the statute book as having been held as ultra vires the constitutional provision. The initiation of proceedings therefore suffers from erroneous assumption of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction as is also held in the recent judgment of the Apex Court 5 in the case of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Versus State of Bihar and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 801, Para- 25 to 29] ii. The proceedings initiated under show-cause notice dated 10.05.2019 which is common in all the writ petitions covering different Assessment Orders, is barred by limitation in view of proviso to Sub Section (5) of Section 11 of the Act being after expiry of two years from the period to which it relates reckoning the starting period of limitation from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 8275/2012 i.e. 22.03.2017. Respondents in their counter affidavit have wrongly placed reliance on the date of starting of limitation period as 09.10.2017 relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and others versus Fr. William Fernandez Etc. [2017 SCC OnLine SC 1291]. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to paragraph 30 and 33 in the case of Fr. William Fernandez Etc. (Supra) dealing with the Civil Appeals of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand and concerning the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods under the Local Areas Act, 1993. According to the petitioner, the said judgment has no application to an assessment proceeding under the Act of 2011. To make the things more clear, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the explanation to the definition clause of 'Importer' under section 2(h)(i) which reads as under.
Supreme Court of India Cites 107 - Cited by 88 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1