JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- "To quash Ext.P4 order issued by the first respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction." 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is engaged in the trading of arecanut and is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent. As per Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent has finalised the assessment for the year 2011-12 under Rule 6(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the CST Rules') and there were no dues payable to the Department. Thereafter, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 notice under Rule 6(5) read with 6(7) of the CST Rules, proposing to assess the petitioner afresh. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 objection to the proposal. However, as per Ext.P4 order, the first respondent finalised the proceedings with a demand of Rs.1,65,622/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the assessment for the year 2011-12 was originally finalised under Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules and thereafter, the assessment can be re-opened only under Rule 6(7). But the respondent has purposely projected Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules in Ext.P2 notice in order to get over the time limit of 4 years provided therein. Rule 6(7)of CST Rules provides a period of four years from the end of the year to which assessment relates, to re-open the assessment and the period of limitation has come to an end by 31-03-2016 and hence Ext.P4 assessment order is barred by limitation. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that, Ext.P4 order has been passed under Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules. Hence, the assessment is within the time limit and no limitation is attracted in this case. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that, Ext.P4 order has been passed under Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules. Hence, the assessment is within the time limit and no limitation is attracted in this case. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader in the counter affidavit filed that as per Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act') assessment is treated as pending u/s.25 and as per provisions of the CST Act, inserted in the Finance Act 2016, time limit mentioned thereunder will not be applicable to the cases in which the dealer fails to file revised annual return rectifying the mistake or omission and fails to file the annexure, statements, certificates, declarations including the statutory declarations to be filed under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 which are required to be filed along with the returns to prove the correctness of the concessional rate of tax, exemptions and exports claimed in the returns. This provision has been given retrospective effect from 01.04.2005. It has been specifically mentioned in the new sub-section that the assessment of the dealers covering the ingredients mentioned in the sub-section for the purpose of section 25 and also for the relevant provisions of CST Act shall be treated as pending and the time limit mentioned thereunder shall not be applicable in such cases. 6. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is seen that the CST assessment for the year 2011-12 was completed on 30.12.2016 with an excess amount of Rs.24,316/-payable to the assesee. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed Ext.P4 order, on the basis of Ext.P2 notice dated 03.03.2017 issued under Rule 6(5) read with Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules. On a perusal of Ext.P1, it is seen that the CST assessment for the year 2011-12 was completed on 30.12.2016 with an excess amount of Rs.24,316/-payable to the assesee. Thereafter, the first respondent has passed Ext.P4 order, on the basis of Ext.P2 notice dated 03.03.2017 issued under Rule 6(5) read with Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules. Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules reads as follows: “6(5) After the close of the year the assessing authority shall after such scrutiny of the accounts and after such enquiry as he considers necessary satisfy himself that the return or returns filed are correct and complete and finally assess under a single order the tax or taxes payable under the Act for the preceding year or for the year to which the return submitted relates as the case may be provided that if no return or returns have been submitted by the dealer as required by sub-rules (1), (1A) and (2) or if any return or returns submitted by him appear to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete the assessing authority shall, after making such enquiry as he considers necessary and after giving the dealer an opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him, determine the turnover to the best of his Judgment and finally assess under a single order the tax or taxes payable under the Act for the preceding year or the year concerned. Such action may be taken in respect of a dealer who discontinues his business during the course of a year soon after such discontinuance.” It is an admitted fact that, Ext.P4 assessment order passed by the first respondent is an escaped assessment under the CST Rules since assessment was already completed in respect of the assessment year 2011-12 as per Ext.P1 order and once the assessment is completed under the CST Rules, for any re-assessment or escaped assessment, the assessing authority is authorised to re-open the assessment only under Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules. As per CST Rules, the re-assessment under Rule 6(7) can be done only within four years from the year to which assessment relates. As per CST Rules, the re-assessment under Rule 6(7) can be done only within four years from the year to which assessment relates. Rule 6(7) of he CST Rules reads as follows : “6(7)(i) If for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax in any year, the assessing authority may at any time within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates proceed to determine to the best of his judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after issuing a notice to the dealer and after making such enquiries as he considers necessary. (ii) Where an assessment or re-assessment has been deferred on account of any stay order granted by the High Court or any competent authority in any case, or by reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court involving a question of law having a direct bearing on the assessment in question, the period during which the stay order was in force or such appeal of proceeding was pending shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in clause (i). (iii) Where an assessment or re-assessment has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court for any reason, the period between the date of such assessment and the date on which it has been set aside shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in clause (i).” The first respondent has issued notice styled as “NOTICE U/S.6(5)READ WITH RULE 7 OF THE CST RULES 1956”. Though Ext.P2 notice is worded as notice under Rule 6(5) read with Rule 7 of the CST Rules, it is in relation to determination of escaped assessment to which the re-assessment relates under Rule 6(7). It is clear that the first respondent has knowingly misquoted the provision in the notice in order to get over the outer limit of four years to complete the re-assessment. By misquoting the provision, the respondent cannot get over the period of limitation provided in Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules, unless the statute otherwise permits. 7. It is clear that the first respondent has knowingly misquoted the provision in the notice in order to get over the outer limit of four years to complete the re-assessment. By misquoting the provision, the respondent cannot get over the period of limitation provided in Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules, unless the statute otherwise permits. 7. The power to assess, re-assess and its connected matters invoking the provisions of KVAT Act is by virtue of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'CST Act') which begins with the word 'subject to the provisions of this Act and Rules', which reads as follows:- “9. Levy and collection of tax and penalties:-(1) xxxxx (2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the General Sales Tax law of the appropriate State, shall on behalf of the Government of India, assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any interest or penalty payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or interest or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or interest or penalty payable under the General Sales Tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the General Sales Tax law of the State and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferee of any business, imposition of the liability of a person carrying on business on the transferee of, or successor to, such business, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or partition of such family recovery of tax from third parties, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, refunds, rebates, penalties, charging or payment of interest compensation, of offences and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer is confidential shall apply accordingly; Provided that if any State or part thereof there is no general sales tax law in force, the Central Government may, by rules made in this behalf make necessary provisions for all or any of the matter specified in this sub-section. (2-A) All the provisions relating to offences, interest and penalties (including provisions relating to penalties in lieu of prosecution for an offence or in additions to the penalties or punishment for an offence but excluding the provisions relating to matters provided for in sections 10 and 10-A) of General sales Tax law of each state shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to the assessment, reassessment, collection and the enforcement of payment of any tax required to be collected under this Act in such State or in relation to any process connected with such assessment, re-assessment, collection or enforcement of payment as if the tax under this Act were a tax under such Sales Tax Law. (2-B) If the tax payable by any dealer under this Act is not paid in time, the dealer shall be liable to pay interest for delayed payment of such tax and all the provisions for delayed payment of such tax and all the provisions relating to due date for payment of tax, rate of interest for delayed payment of tax and assessment and collection of interest for delayed payment of tax, of the General Sales Tax law of each State, shall apply in relation to due date for payment of tax, rate of interest for delayed payment of tax, and assessment and collection of interest for delayed payment of tax under this Act, in such States as if the tax and the interest payable under this Act were a tax and an interest under such Sales Tax law.” 8. From this, it is clear that if there is any independent provision under CST Act, that alone can be invoked for the purpose of implementing CST Act and if there is no such provision under the CST Act, then the provisions under KVAT Act can be invoked for the purpose of assessment under CST Act. In this case, Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules has specifically provided the period of limitation before which the re-assessment is permissible. The issue regarding the time limit prescribed under Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules was considered by this Court in the decision in State of Kerala v. Parisons Agrotech Pvt.Ltd. [Neutral Citation No.2013/KER/26393 (judgment dated 11/07/2013 in W.A.No.1018/2013)]. In this case, Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules has specifically provided the period of limitation before which the re-assessment is permissible. The issue regarding the time limit prescribed under Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules was considered by this Court in the decision in State of Kerala v. Parisons Agrotech Pvt.Ltd. [Neutral Citation No.2013/KER/26393 (judgment dated 11/07/2013 in W.A.No.1018/2013)]. It was held by this Court that Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules provides an outer limit of 4 years for the re-assessment and such re-assessment as per Rule 6(7) can be done only within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. Rule 6(7) stipulates that if for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax in any year, the assessing authority may at any time (within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates proceed to) determine to the best of his judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable on such turnover after issuing a notice to the dealer and after making such enquiries as he considers necessary. 9. It is relevant to note that in the present case, the assessment year is 2011-12 and the notice for escaped assessment was issued on 03.03.2017, which is after four years prescribed under Section 6(7) of CST Rules. Misquoting of a provision to legalise an act which is otherwise time barred, is per se illegal. The provision under section 6(5) of CST Rules is misquoted, in order to bring the re-assessment within the time limit. 10. In Parisons Agrotech Pvt.Ltd. (supra), it was held that Rule 6(7) of the CST Rules provides an outer limit of 4 years for the re-assessment and the re-assessment as per Rule 6(7) can be done only within four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. The notice for escaped assessment in respect of the assessment year 2011-12, ought to have been issued by the first respondent on or before 31.3.2016. Since Exhibit P2 notice was issued only on 03.03.2017, beyond the period of four years prescribed under the Rules, following the judgment in Parisons Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Exts.P2 notice and P4 order are set aside holding that it is barred by limitation. The writ petition is disposed of as above.