Case Law Details
Nav Bsa Enterprises Vs Enforcement Officer (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court considered a writ petition challenging Ext.P1, a consolidated show cause notice issued by the respondents covering multiple financial years, namely 2019-2020 to 2021-2022.
The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice on the ground that issuance of a composite show cause notice for multiple assessment years was not legally sustainable. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the decisions of the High Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, Audit Division-IV.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s submission. The Court observed that the Division Bench, in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, had indeed held that issuance of a composite notice covering multiple assessment years was not legally sustainable.
In view of the principles laid down in those judgments, the Court held that interference with the impugned notice was warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by quashing Ext.P1.
The Court granted liberty to the respondents to issue separate show cause notices for the relevant assessment years. It further directed that, for the purpose of computing limitation for initiating fresh proceedings, the period from the date of issuance of the composite notice until the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment would stand excluded.
The Court also clarified that all other contentions of the parties were left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 consolidated Show Cause Notice which was issued by the respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2019-2020 to 2021-2022. The main challenge raised against the sustainability of the same is that, issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years was found to be not legally sustainable as per the decision rendered by this Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories 12025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, Audit Division – IV 12025 VIL 356 KER]
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find merits in the said submission, in view of the fact that, such a finding was indeed entered into by the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions referred to above.
In such circumstances„ in the light principles laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P1, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of issuance of composite notice till the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for initiating fresh proceeding. All the other contentions of the parties are left open.
Author Bio
