IMPORTANT POINT
Assessment proceedings can be reopened on audit objection pointing out factual information already available in the records but overlooked or not taken into consideration, as also on audit pointing out some information or facts available outside the record or any arithmetical mistake.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (T) No. 2630 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd.-the appellant-Company while upholding the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur.

2. Brief facts:

(a) The appellant-Company, having its registered office at Mumbai, is a public limited company and is involved in manufacturing, trading, leasing and construction business throughout the country. At the relevant time, the appellant-Company was involved in the execution of civil work contracts for its client, viz., Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO) and had been filing its returns under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Act’) and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Central Act’) in the Commercial Taxes Department, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur.

(b) For the Assessment Year (AY) 1991-92, the appellant-Company filed returns under the State Act. However, the assessment proceedings in relation to the above period, i.e., AY 1991-92 was completed in the year 1996 and an assessment order dated 24.01.1996 was passed by the assessing authority.

(c) After the assessment proceedings, an audit team of the Auditor General, Bihar, audited the assessment order dated 24.01.1996 and found that the dealer was allowed exemption of Rs. 3,12,47,916/-, being the amount of goods consumed by the appellant-Company during the course of execution of works contract. The appellant-Company claimed that such goods were purchased on payment of tax but no declaration in Form IX-C along with other evidence was submitted whereas the production or declaration of Form IX-C was mandatory, hence, the claim was not allowable and the said fact was conveyed to the assessing authority.

(d) On 28.09.2000, the office of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, served a show cause notice to the appellant-Company to state as to why tax should not be levied on it for the amount of Rs. 3,12,47,916/- which was wrongly exempted from being taxed under the provision of the State Act.

(e) After affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-Company, a re-assessment order dated 27.02.2006 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur whereby an additional demand of Rs. 35,72,475/- was created against the appellant-Company.

(f) Being aggrieved by the re-assessment order dated 27.02.2006, the appellant-Company preferred a writ petition being W.P. (T) No. 2630 of 2006 before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 17.11.2006, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant –Company while upholding the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur.

(g) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2006, the appellant-Company has preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company and Mr. Amarendra Saran and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records.

Point for consideration:

4. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether on the information given by the audit team of the Auditor General, Bihar, the Assessing Authority was satisfied that reasonable ground exists to believe that a part of the turnover of the appellant-Company has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act based on which the assessing officer can re-open the assessment?

Rival contentions:

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company contended that an ‘audit objection’ cannot be construe