JUDGMENT :

1. Both these writ applications have been preferred by common Assessee-M/s. Rungta Mines Limited raising common question of law and were heard analogous with the consent of the parties and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing of Sponge Iron, M.S. Billets and TMT Bar and Writ Petition being W.P. (T) No. 3311/2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 has been filed challenging re-assessment order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Authority-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, wherein pursuant to an audit objection raised by the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, re-assessment order was passed in exercise of the power under Section 42(3) of the Jharkhand Valued Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘JVAT Act’).

3. In writ Petition being W.P. (T) No. 3528 of 2022, Assessment Year involved is 2015-16 and in the said writ application also, pursuant to a similar audit objection raised by the office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, re-assessment order dated 08.03.2022 has been passed by the Assessing Authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, Chaibasa which has been assailed by the writ petitioner.

4. The primary contention of the Petitioner is that re-assessment orders have been passed beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the JVAT Act and Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act is only a provision which provides the circumstances under which re-assessment proceedings can be initiated, and it has been further contended that only enabling provision for carrying out re-assessment proceedings under the Act is contained under Section 40 read with Section 40(4) of the JVAT Act, which prescribes the period of limitation of five years and since the re-assessment orders have been passed beyond the statutory period, the same is without jurisdiction.

5. Since the facts involved in both the writ applications are identical, it would suffice to enumerate herein the brief facts pertaining to W.P. (T) No. 3311 of 2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee, being a manufacturing unit of Sponge Iron, M.S. Billets/Ingots and TMT Bars, filed its statutory returns including statutory audit report in Form JVAT 409, wherein it declared its turnover of Rs. 351,52,40,458.23 and has shown a loss of Rs. 12,78,61,699.32 incurred by it on manufacture and sale of M.S. Ingots. The original assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, wherein turnover of the Petitioner was accepted and no dispute pertaining to loss suffered by the Petitioner was raised, and, admitted tax liability pursuant to said original assessment order dated 10.01.2017 was duly discharged by the Petitioner.

6. However, subsequently, an audit objection was raised vide Audit Objection No. 87/2019-20 by the office of the Accountant General, wherein by placing reliance upon Rule 25(4) of JVAT Rules 2006, it was suggested that since Petitioner-unit sold M.S. Billets/Ingots below its cost price by selling it at a loss of Rs. 12.78 crores, the same was liable to be taxed @ 5% as Rule 25(4) of JVAT Rules provides, inter alia, that if a dealer sells goods less than its cost price, differential amount i.e. loss amount would be leviable to tax at applicable rate.

7. Subsequent to aforesaid objection, Notice bearing No. 456 dated 19.06.2020 in statutory Form JVAT 302 was issued to the Petitioner initiating proceeding for reassessment. Said Notice was issued in exercise of power under Section 40(1) read with 42(3) of the JVAT Act. Petitioner appeared and filed its reply to the aforesaid Notice and raised a preliminary objection regarding very initiation of the re-assessment proceeding by placing reliance upon Section 40(1) read with Section 40(4) of the JVAT Act and contended that in view of limitation prescribed under the Act, the very initiation of re-assessment pro