Case Law Details
Aranmula Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Intelligence) (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court considered a writ petition challenging an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Intelligence) covering multiple financial years from 2017-18 to 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the order was based on a composite show cause notice issued for several assessment years and that such a course was legally unsustainable. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions of the Court which held that issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years is impermissible.
After hearing both sides, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s contention. It noted that the Division Bench, in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, had already held that composite notices covering multiple assessment years were not legally sustainable.
In light of those principles, the Court interfered with the impugned order and quashed it. 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 the original show cause notice until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment would 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 order which was issued by the 2nd respondent for multiple financial years namely, 2017-18 to 2023-24. 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 2491 and Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [2025 KHC OnLine 467]
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, I find merit 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 of the 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 show cause notice based on which Ext.P1 order was passed, till the date of receipt of the 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
