IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan, JJ.
TML Drivelines Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department and ors. – Respondents
W.P. (T) No. 4073 of 2022 & W.P.(T) No. 4071 of 2022
Decided On : 09-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on company mergers and registrations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the audit objection and its implications. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. discussion on the failure to initiate proper re-assessment. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. grounds of appeal before the tribunal. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments from petitioner's counsel regarding re-assessment limitations. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. discussion on statutory provisions regarding reassessment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. analysis of penalty and mens rea requirement in tax law. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. counterarguments from the state regarding reassessment authority. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. court's overarching conclusions on reassessment and penalty. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. final decision on the sustainability of penalty and reassessment timelines. (Para 60 , 62) |
| 11. quashing of tribunal's order and conclusion. (Para 63) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Since both these writ applications pertain to common Assessee raising common question of law and were heard analogous with the consent of the parties and as such both are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the original company H.V. Transmissions Limited was engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of axles and its spare parts on job work basis for Tata Motors Limited. The original company, pursuant to amalgamation order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Company Petition No. 247 of 2001, was merged with one 'H.V. Transmission Limited' and the name of amalgamated company was changed to 'TML Drivelines Limited' vide order dated 29th July, 2004. Thereafter, again, pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by National Company Law Tribunal (for short 'NCLT'), Mumbai, 'TML Drivelines merged with 'Tata Motors Limited' and, at present, the assessee-company is known as 'Tata Motors Limited'.
3. The assessee-company, at the relevant point of time, was manufacturing axles and its spare parts for Tata Motors Limited, for which, entire raw materials were supplied by Tata Motors Limited and, after manufacturing of the goods, the goods were transferred to Tata Motors Limited. The assesse, for carrying out manufacturing activity, required certain goods to be utilized for manufacturing and processing and, accordingly, it applied for grant of Registration Certificate under the provisions of the CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT , 1956 (for short 'CST Act'). Registration Certificate was granted to the assessee-company under the provisions of the CST Act on 05.04.2020 and in the Certificate, business of the company was described as 'Manufacturing, Designing, Processing and Trading' and the company was entitled to purchase automotive axles parts, components, instruments, appliances, equipment and apparatus at concessional rate. However, at the time of issuance of original Certificate, the aforesaid goods were only reflected against the column 'Re-sale' and in the column 'For use in the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale', the said goods were inadvertently not mentioned and the word “Wahi /"do” was left out in the original Registration Certificate.
The case of the assessee-company is that although original entry in its Registration Certificate itself was wide enough to entitle the assessee-company to purchase goods, namely, tools, spares and consumables at concessional rate and that it was all along purchasing the aforesaid goods i.e. tools, spares and consumables at concessional rate and no dispute was raised by the Department, but the assessee-company, by way of abundant caution got its Registration Certificate amended with effect from 06.10.2009 by including therein the goods namely, 'tools', 'spares' and 'consumables' for use by the company in 're-sale' and/or 'for manufacturing'.
4. The periods in dispute in the two writ petitions pertain to the Assessment Year 2008-09 [in W.P.(T) No. 4073 of 2022] and 2009-10 (in W.P.(T) No. 4071 of 2022] and in respect of both the Assessment Years, original assessment orders wer
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Sanjeev Fabrics
G.K. Choksi & Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Indian Eastern Newspaper Society, New Dehi Vs. Commissioner
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Maharashtra University vs. Prakash Mandal
The filing of revised returns after the initiation of penalty proceedings lacked bona fide and did not absolve the petitioner from liability under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act.
Section 21 provides for self-assessment of returns filed under Section 20.
The assessment under Section 42 of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act is invalid if based on an Audit Visit Report submitted after the statutory deadline, thus protecting the integrity of tax procedures.
The court established that amendments to the KVAT Act's limitation provisions are prospective and do not apply retroactively to past assessments.
The provisions imposing penal interest on assessees who voluntarily revise their returns are unconstitutional as they create an arbitrary distinction between honest taxpayers and those whose returns ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.