The High Court of Karnataka,while dismissing the appeal filed by Kalyan Jewellers Salem (Pvt.) Ltd held that the revision proceedings initiated under Section 64 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act,2003,were within the prescribed limitation period.

Kalyan Jewellers Salem (Pvt.) Ltd,petitioner-assessee,filed an appeal under Section 66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenging the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, for the assessment year 2010-11.

The appeal questioned the correctness of the revision proceedings initiated under the said order and raised two substantial questions of law.

The assessee counsel argued that the revision proceedings under Section 64 of the KVAT Act were time-barred. The show cause notice was issued on 21.11.2024, while the First Appellate Authority had passed its order on 16.09.2019, which exceeded the time limit under Section 64(3)(c).

It was also submitted that an appeal against the appellate order could be filed within 30 days, with an extended period of up to 180 days. Since no appeal was filed, the revision proceedings were not maintainable under Section 64(3)(a), which prohibits such action if the appeal period had not expired.

The department counsel argued that the revision proceedings were within the time limit under Section 64 of the KVAT Act. He stated that the four-year period should be counted from the date the records were called, not from the date of the show cause notice. In this case, the records were called on 21.12.2019, shortly after the First Appellate Authority passed its order on 16.09.2019.

Read More:Rs. 10cr GST ITC Fraud:Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail to Accused Noting Prolonged Custody and OngoingTrial

He also submitted that since the appellate order was passed on merits under Section 62, the assessee could not rely on Section 64(3)(a) to challenge the proceedings.

The Court held that the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee did not arise for consideration.

It noted that the reassessment order under Section 39(1) was passed on 20.01.2017, after issuing a notice on 22.09.2016. The assessee did not appeal this order under Section 62. Instead, after more than two years, a rectification application was filed under Section 69, which was not for correcting any apparent mistake but was treated like an appeal.

After the rectification request was rejected, the assessee filed an appeal under Section 62(6), which was partly allowed on 16.09.2019. The Additional Commissioner called for records on 21.12.2019 to begin revision proceedings under Section 64.

Justice S.G Pandit and Justice T.M Nadaf observed that the limitation period under Section 64(3) should be counted from the date the records were called. Since the records were called within the permitted time from the date of the appellate order, the proceedings were held to be within time. Hence, the substantial question of law did not survive.

Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates