The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a dealer to claim Input Tax Credit on Intrastate stock transfer of goods under Section 18(8)(ix) of the JVAT Act, and the impact of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in setting aside the earlier judgment of the court in the case of Tata Steel Ltd.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Aforesaid batch of writ applications involve common question of law and were tagged to be heard together and same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The short issue involved in these writ petitions is “Whether Petitioner-company is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit on Intrastate stock transfer of goods and denial of the same to it is contrary to amended provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘JVAT Act’)”?

3. For the sake of ready reference, facts of individual cases are enumerated hereunder in short:

(i) W.P. (T) No. 786 of 2013 pertains to the period 2010-11 in respect of Unit-II of the Petitioner-company. The Petitioner is primarily engaged in manufacturing and selling of Auto Parts and Leaf Spring assembly. Petitioner has two Units/Plants being Unit No. I and Unit No. II bearing TIN No. 20310900926 and TIN No. 2044 0905643 respectively and both the Units are situated at Adityapur Industrial Area, Jamshedpur. It is the case of the Petitioner that during normal course of its business, Petitioner makes Intrastate stock transfer of goods from its Unit-II to Unit-I and vice versa. An inspection was conducted in the premises of the Petitioner by a team of officials of Commercial Taxes Department and for the Period 2010-11 it was alleged that the Petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit (for short ‘ITC’) for Rs. 52,28,783.68 on Intrastate stock transfer of its goods and it was contended in the Inspection Report that ITC on the goods manufactured and thereafter stock transferred within the State is not eligible in view of the provisions of Section 18(8)(ix) of JVAT Act, 2005. Under the said circumstances, notices were issued against the Petitioner initiating ‘Before Assessment Proceedings’ under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act and impugned ‘Before Assessment Order’ dated 05.12.2012 was passed by Assessing Officer under Section 40(2), wherein claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer was disallowed and total liability along with interest thereupon was fastened upon the Petitioner of Rs. 42,15,419/-. The Assessment Order dated 05.12.2012 (at Annexure-4) is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

(ii) W.P. (T) No. 790 of 2013 also pertains to Unit-II of the Petitioner for the period 2011-12 and pursuant to the inspection carried out by a team of officials of Commercial Taxes Department, proceeding under Section 40(2) of JVAT Act was initiated against the Petitioner and Order dated 05.12.2012 (Annexure-4) was passed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of goods, amounting to Rs. 63,57,867/-, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

(iii) W.P. (T) No. 788 of 2013 also pertains to Unit-II of the Petitioner, wherein pursuant to the inspection carried out, similar proceeding under Section 40(2) was initiated and claim of ITC on Intrastate stock transfer of goods was disallowed vide order dated 05.12.2012 passed under Section 40(2) of JVAT Act and total ITC along with interest thereupon amounting to Rs. 5,13,425/- was disallowed, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

(iv) W.P. (T) No. 4508 of 2021 pertains to Unit-I of the Petitioner-company bearing TIN 20310900926 for the period 2011-12. Petitioner filed its return for the period 2011-12 for its Unit-I, wherein it claimed total ITC of Rs. 42,86,923.76. However, the Assessing Officer, at the time of passing of Assessment Order dated 21.11.2014, out of the total claim of ITC amounting to Rs. 42,86,923.76, allowed only a claim of Rs. 36,81,172.93 and the balance claim of Rs. 6,98,24, 413.99 was denied on the ground that Petitioner made Intrastate stock transfer of goods from its Unit-I to Unit-II. The Assessing Officer relied upon a decision of this Court in the case in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. dated 24.04.2008 passed in W.P. (T) No. 6285 of 2007. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, p