High Court Kerala High Court

M.Assiyamma vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 28 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.Assiyamma vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 28 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1100 of 2007()


1. M.ASSIYAMMA, PRIPRIETRIX,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :28/08/2009

 O R D E R
                 C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                           K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
                 --------------------------------------------
               R.P. No.1100/2007 in ST Rev. 235/2004,
                R.P.No.1101/2007 in ST Rev. 233/2004,
               R.P. No. 1102/2007 in ST Rev. 232/2004,
               R.P. No. 1103/2007 in ST Rev. 230/2004,
              R.P. No. 1104/2007 in ST Rev. 234/2004 &
               R.P. No. 1118/2007 in ST Rev. 231/2004
                 --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009

                                O R D E R

Ramachandran Nair, J.

These Review Petitions are filed against common judgment of

this Court wherein this Court upheld the order of the Tribunal declaring

the assessments for 1994-95 to 1996-97 as completed within time.

Review Petitioner’s case is that since assessments were already

completed on 28.1.2001, assessments were not pending to apply the

limitation introduced by proviso to Section 17 by Finance Act, 2006.

However, this Court took the view that even if the assessments are

declared invalid on account of time bar, the consequence would be that

returns will be pending and it will be still within the time frame under

the amended provision for the officer to make assessments. We do

not find any mistake in the judgment rendered based on the amendment

subsequently introduced by Finance Act, 2006. Even though counsel

2

for the review petitioner prayed for remand of the matter to the

Tribunal to consider factual position, there is no scope for deciding any

factual controversy in respect of limitation claimed against

assessments. Consequently the prayer for remand is also rejected.

In the result review petitions will stand dismissed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(K.M. JOSEPH)
Judge.

kk

3