2019 Taxo.online 344
W.A. no. 1149 of 2019
M/s Atlas Gold Super Market
State of Kerala
Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017
CGST Rules 2017
C.K. ABDUL REHIM and R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
In favour of assessee
REPRESENTED BY: –
PETITIONER: – SRI.A.KUMAR AND SHRI.ABRAHAM JOB AND SRI.AJAY V.ANAND
RESPONDENT: – SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN
The petitioner in W.P.(C) 31972/2018 is challenging the judgment dismissing the writ petition. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.
2. Exts.P4 to P8 notices proposing refixation of payment of compounded tax under Section 8(f) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as ‘the KVAT Act’) were challenged in the writ petition by contending that the proceedings was initiated beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act in one of the cases and also contending that an identical proceedings with respect to the previous years are under challenge before this court and there were interim orders issued with respect to operation of the said proceedings initiated. Inter alia, the appellant challenged constitutional validity of Section 174 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act(KSGST Act, for short), in the writ petition.
3. The writ petition was dismissed along with a batch of other cases by holding that, the issue involved stands covered against the petitioner by virtue of the judgment in W.P.(C) 11335/2018 and connected cases, dated 11th January, 2019.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment in W.P.(C) 11335/2018 and connected cases covers only the question regarding the validity of Section 174 and that the learned Single Judge had omitted to consider the other grounds raised in the writ petition. The above fact is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is also evident that, from the judgment in W.P.(C) 11335/2018 and connected cases, a lot of writ appeals have already been admitted by this court and the issue is now pending consideration before the Division Bench.
5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that a remittance of the writ petition for consideration of the questions other than the validity of Section 174 of the KGST Act, is warranted and will serve the ends of justice. Hence we are inclined to remit the writ petition for a fresh consideration and disposal.
6. Hence the above Writ Appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 31972/2018, dated 21st January, 2019 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is restored on to the files of this court for fresh consideration and disposal on the points mentioned as above.
7. The Registry shall post the writ petition before the learned Single Judge dealing with the subject matter, as per the roster.
8. The interim order which was in force as on the date of the dismissal of the writ petition, shall stand revived and shall continue to be in force.