IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 ST.Rev..No. 240 of 2010() ------------------------- TA.248/2009 of S.T.A.T.ADDL.BENCH,TVM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE --------------------------------- SRI.S.SHAHUL HAMEED, MALIK METALS, KOLLAM-691 001. ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.M.FIROZ THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2011, ALONG WITH STRV NO.242 OF 2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (STREV. 240/2010) ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DT.14.7.2007. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE STAT DT.31.3.2010. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... S.T. Rev. Nos.240 & 242 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The common question raised in the connected cases is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Deputy Commissioner has no authority under the first proviso to Section 17(4) of the KGST Act to reopen an assessment completed by the Assessing Officer under the said provision. We have heard Government Pleader for the petitioner and Senior counsel Dr.K.B.Mohammed Kutty for respondent. 2. After hearing both sides we find that even though Tribunal's finding on the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner is not tenable by virtue of the express powers conferred on him for ordering scrutiny assessment under first proviso to Section 17(4), the proceedings issued by him is barred by limitation because first proviso to Section 17(4) does not provide for revision of assessment for any period beyond five years from the date of initiation of proceeding. Similarly limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 35 is also only four years. In 2 this case the assessments impugned were of the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and the proceedings under the first proviso to Section 17(4) was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner nearly after 12 years after the date of passing the original assessments. Consequently the assessments are time barred. We, therefore, dismiss the revision cases filed by the State, but not for the reasons stated by the Tribunal in their order and only on the ground of limitation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms