Case Law Details
Vettolil Varghese Aniyan Kunju Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The writ petition challenged Ext.P1 Show Cause Notice issued by the respondents for multiple financial years, namely 2019-2020 to 2021-2022. The petitioner contended that the issuance of a composite show cause notice covering multiple assessment years was legally unsustainable. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Kerala High Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, Audit Division-IV [2025 VIL 356 KER], wherein such composite notices and orders for multiple assessment years had been held to be impermissible.
After hearing both sides, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s contention and noted that the Division Bench had already laid down the relevant legal principles in the above decisions. In view of those precedents, the Court held that interference was warranted.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by quashing Ext.P1 Show Cause Notice. However, the respondents were granted liberty to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. The Court further directed that, while computing the limitation period for initiating fresh proceedings, the period from the date of issuance of the impugned show cause notice until the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment shall be excluded. 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 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 and order 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 [2025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, Audit Division – IV [2025 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 Show Cause Notice, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of issuance of Show Cause 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
