Case Law Details
Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) & Ors Vs Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court held that a proviso cannot militate against the intention of the main provision in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act and thus a proviso cannot extend the limitation period which is fixed under the main provision.
Facts- The bone of contention between the parties herein is with regard to the interpretation to be given to the words “at any time within five years from the last date of the year to which the return relates, proceed to determine” as found in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and the third proviso to the said sub-section as inserted with effect from 01.04.2015 which reads: “provided also that the period for the completion of assessments including those subjected to extension under Section 25B which expires on 31st March, 2015, shall be extended up to 31st March, 2016” in light of the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2017.
Conclusion- A proviso cannot militate against the intention of the main provision in sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act and thus a proviso cannot extend the limitation period which is fixed under the main provision. The normal function of a proviso is to exempt something out of the provision or to qualify something enacted therein which, but for the proviso, would be within the purview of the provision. As a general rule, a proviso is added to an enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule. In other words, a proviso qualifies the generality of the main enactment by providing an exception and taking out, as it were, from the main enactment, a portion which, but for the proviso, would fall within the main provision. Further, a proviso cannot be construed as nullifying the provision or as taking away completely a right conferred by the enactment.
Held that the proceedings for the determination of the escaped turnover must necessarily commence and conclude by way of an appropriate order within the period stipulated in sub-section (1) of Section 25 and the third proviso thereto.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
