JUDGMENT : P.M. Manoj, J. The question raised before this Court in this writ petition is whether the impugned assessment order issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short ‘the KVAT Act’) by the 4 th respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is a private limited company and an assessee under the KVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short ‘the CST Act’) on the rolls of the 4 th respondent, engaged in the manufacture and sale of Ayurvedic products and medicines. 3. In compliance with the statutory requirements under the KVAT Act, the petitioner submitted returns under the KVAT Act as well as the CST Act for the assessment year 2011–12. The petitioner reported inter-State sales, inter-State stock transfers, and export sales. 4. Subsequently, the 3 rd respondent, being the assessing authority, issued a notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act on the premise that the annual return disclosed transactions of cosmetics valued at Rs.16,285.72 and medicines valued at Rs.29,66,416.57 as inter-State stock transfers. The petitioner had claimed exemption from payment of tax on such transactions but had not produced supporting documents to substantiate the claim of inter-State stock transfer. Accordingly, a notice dated 25.01.2018 was issued under Section 25(1) of the Act. 5. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner sought time to produce the requisite documents. However, the assessing authority proceeded to complete the assessment in terms of the proposal contained in the notice, as evidenced by Ext.P1. 6. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the assessment was completed without granting sufficient opportunity to produce the requisite documents, despite the petitioner having sought time for the same. It is further contended that the proceedings for the assessment year 2011–12 are barred by limitation and that no proceedings could have been initiated for the said year at all. 7. The petitioner submits that the Kerala Finance Act, 2017 introduced amendments to Section 25 of the KVAT Act, whereby the period of limitation for completing assessment was enhanced from five years to six years with effect from 01.04.2017. According to the petitioner, the said amendment has no retrospective effect. It is contended that the period of limitation can only be reckoned based on the law in force during the relevant assessment year. According to the petitioner, the said amendment has no retrospective effect. It is contended that the period of limitation can only be reckoned based on the law in force during the relevant assessment year. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any express provision making the amendment retrospective, it cannot be presumed that the extended period of six years would apply to the assessment year ending on 31.03.2017. 8. A proviso was also introduced to Section 25, whereby the period for completing assessments that expired on 31.03.2017 was extended up to 31.03.2018. However, the petitioner contends that, the self assessment by the petitioner/assesse for the assessment year 2011-12 was sought to be re-opened by the assessing authority in terms of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act by a notice dated 25.01.2018. As per the provisions of Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act as it stood then, the assessing authority had time only upto 31.03.2017 to issue the notice for assessment of escaped turnover, and in this case, the notice was issued only on 25.01.2018. 9. The provision was amended through the Kerala Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017 when the period of limitation under Section 25(1) for proceeding to determine the escaped turnover was changed from “five years” to “six years from the end of the year to which the assessment relates” and the third proviso thereto was amended to read as follows: “Provided also that the period for proceeding to determine any assessment including those subjected to extension under section 25B which expires on 31 st March, 2017, shall be extended up to 31 st March, 2018.” 10. Moreover, the intention of the legislature, as discernible from the speech of the Finance Minister, is that “the period for completing assessments up to 2011–12 will expire on 31st March, 2018, and the time for completing such assessments has been extended up to 31st March, 2019.” 11. Relying on the above, it is contended that the legislative intent has been categorically and explicitly clarified by the Finance Minister. The amendment was introduced to extend the period for completing assessments up to 31.03.2019, thereby implying that the limitation period for the assessment year 2011–12, which would otherwise expire on 31.03.2018, stood extended by a further period of one year, i.e., up to 31.03.2019. 12. The amendment was introduced to extend the period for completing assessments up to 31.03.2019, thereby implying that the limitation period for the assessment year 2011–12, which would otherwise expire on 31.03.2018, stood extended by a further period of one year, i.e., up to 31.03.2019. 12. This, according to the petitioner, clearly indicates that the assessment for the year 2011–12 ought to have been completed on or before 31.03.2018 in the normal course, and only by virtue of the amendment, the period was extended up to 31.03.2019. Therefore, it is contended that the statutory scheme envisages a maximum period of six years for completion of assessment, leaving no scope for issuance of notice beyond the prescribed period or for keeping the assessment proceedings pending thereafter. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the period for completion of assessment, as contemplated under Section 25, was originally prescribed as five years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and, after the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2017, as six years. Accordingly, it is submitted that the period for completing the assessment for the year 2010–11 expired on 31.03.2017 and, for the year 2011–12, on 31.03.2018. 14. Moreover, it is contended that the Kerala Finance Act, 2018 seeks to introduce amendments to a repealed enactment and, in view of the deletion of Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, such amendments are illegal, unconstitutional, and ultra vires of Section 174 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the KGST Act’). 15. It is further contended that the mere issuance of a notice within the six-year period for the assessment year 2011–12 would not save the situation or operate to extend the period of limitation beyond 31.03.2018. 16. 15. It is further contended that the mere issuance of a notice within the six-year period for the assessment year 2011–12 would not save the situation or operate to extend the period of limitation beyond 31.03.2018. 16. In order to substantiate the above contentions, the petitioner has relied on the following decisions: Cholayil Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Asst) [ 2015 KHC 5273], Assistant Commissioner (Asst) v. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 KHC 7078 ], Baiju A.A and others v. State Tax Officer and Others [ 2020 (1) KHC 39 ], State Tax Officer & others v. Baiju A.A. and others [WA No.48 of 2020] Division Bench Judgment, M/s. N.K.Trading Company v. State of Kerala [2024: KER: 78170], M/s.Sandalia Footwear Industries v. State Tax Officer [2024: KER: 83477], Commercial Tax Officer, Anchal v. S.Najeem and another [ 2018 (3) KLT 877 ], M/s. Paharpur Cooling Tower Limited v. State of Kerala [WA No. 254 of 2017) Division Bench reference order dated 23.02.2022, MCP Enterprises and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2020 (2) KLT 295 ], State of Kerala and others v. MCP Enterprises [2020 (6) KTL Online 1091], M/s. Cherian Varkey Construction Company (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ WPC No.656 of 2019] Single Bench, Lisy P.T. v. State Tax Officer [WPC No.37338 of 2018] Single Bench, State of Punjab and others v. M/s. Shreyans Indus Ltd. Etc. [2016(3) TMI 331-Supreme Court]. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the assessment proceedings commencing with issuance of notice on 25.01.2018 is time barred as proceedings in regard to the assessment year 2011-12 ought to have been initiated within five years and such time expired on 31.03.2017. The petitioner also contended that the aspect of application of five years to the context is no longer resintegra. The law is settled in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Asst) v. Cholayil Pvt Ltd (supra) and followed by various judgments. It is contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmatively held that the amendment vide Kerala Finance Act, 2017 is with effect from 01.04.2017 and does not have any retrospective effect. 18. The law is settled in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (Asst) v. Cholayil Pvt Ltd (supra) and followed by various judgments. It is contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmatively held that the amendment vide Kerala Finance Act, 2017 is with effect from 01.04.2017 and does not have any retrospective effect. 18. The upshot of the decisions referred above is that the main part of Section 25(1) clearly indicates that the extended period of six years for re-opening assessments is to operate prospectively with effect from 01.04.2017, while the third proviso carves out those assessments where the period of re-opening would have expired by 31.03.2017, for a differential treatment, by stating that in such cases, the re- opening could be carried out before 31.03.2018. To treat the said proviso as having only prospective effect would render the words used by the legislature in the said proviso meaningless and accord to it the same meaning as the main provision. 19. The Apex Court also clarifies that the expression ‘proceed to determine’ is found in the amendment made to the KVAT Act with effect from 2017 Finance Act, where as in the earlier amendment, the expression clearly was to ‘complete the assessment’ in the third proviso of sub- section (1) of Section 25 which is also a clear indication of the intention of the legislature to give a command to the concerned assessing officers seized of the proceedings which had been initiated under sub-section(1) of Section 25 to complete within the time frame as stipulated in the said proviso. The amendment to the Kerala Finance Act, 2017 is with effect from 01.04.2017 and does not have any retrospective effect. 20. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, contended that the amendment brought in with effect from 01.04.2017 conferred on the assessing authorities the power to reopen assessments for assessment years upto six years prior to 01.04.2017. The amendment to the Kerala Finance Act, 2017 is with effect from 01.04.2017 and does not have any retrospective effect. 20. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, contended that the amendment brought in with effect from 01.04.2017 conferred on the assessing authorities the power to reopen assessments for assessment years upto six years prior to 01.04.2017. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Additional Commissioner (Legal) and another v. Jyoti Traders and another , wherein the apex court reversing the decisions of the High Court that as on the date when the proviso came into force the Commissioner could authorise making of an assessment or reassessment after the expiry of four years from the end of the particular assessment year; it was immaterial if the period for assessment or reassessment under Section 21(2) as it stood before the addition of the proviso had expired. It was the completion of the reassessment which had to be done before the expiry of eight years of the particular year. The counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision in Union of India and others v. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 469 ITR 46(SC)] to suggest that the amendments brought about through the Kerala Finance Act, 2017 are retrospective in their operation. 21. On evaluating the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. A. Kumar, assisted by Smt.G. Mini, as well as the learned Special Government Pleader, it appears that, in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Assistant Commissioner (Asst) v. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. and other decisions, the amendment made to the KVAT Act by the Kerala Finance Act, 2017 substituted the expression “proceed to determine” in place of the earlier expression “complete the assessment.” The third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 25 clearly indicates the legislative intent to mandate the assessing authorities, seized of proceedings initiated under Section 25(1), to complete the same within the time frame stipulated therein. The amendment introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, does not have retrospective operation. 22. In the present case, the assessment period for the year 2011–12 expired on 31.03.2017. The notice under Section 25(1) was issued only on 25.01.2018, i.e., after the expiry of the prescribed period of five years. The amendment introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 01.04.2017, does not have retrospective operation. 22. In the present case, the assessment period for the year 2011–12 expired on 31.03.2017. The notice under Section 25(1) was issued only on 25.01.2018, i.e., after the expiry of the prescribed period of five years. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decisions in Assistant Commissioner (Asst) v. Cholayil Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. N.K.Trading Company v. State of Kerala (supra) in OT Rev. No. 14/2023 dated 22.10.2024. Accordingly, taking cue from the decisions cited supra, the writ petition is disposed of.