Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN, JJ.
State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (now known as Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes), Ranchi - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
W.P. (T) No. 3229 of 2020 with W.P.(T) No. 3246 of 2020
Decided On : 15-01-2024
[TAXATION] - [VALUE ADDED TAX REFUND] - [JVAT ACT, 2005: SECTIONS 52, 53, 80, 81; JVAT RULES: RULES 19, 54] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, particularly Sections 52 and 53 regarding tax refunds, and Sections 80 and 81 concerning revision and review of assessment orders. It emphasized the requirement for timely processing of refund applications and the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The court interpreted the statutory provisions to conclude that the Additional Commissioner acted beyond his authority in initiating suo motu revision proceedings after dropping review proceedings, thus influencing the decision to uphold the Tribunal's order restoring the original assessment orders.]
Fact of the Case:
The State of Jharkhand filed writ petitions challenging the Commercial Taxes Tribunal's order that quashed the Additional Commissioner's revision of assessment orders for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, which had determined excess tax refunds for the respondent, M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional Commissioner had acted improperly by initiating suo motu revision proceedings after previously dropping review proceedings. The Tribunal's decision to restore the original assessment orders was upheld as it was based on a proper interpretation of the JVAT Act and the procedural requirements therein.
Issues: Whether the Additional Commissioner had the authority to initiate suo motu revision proceedings after dropping review proceedings, and whether the Tribunal's decision to restore the original assessment orders was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Additional Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by initiating revision proceedings on the same grounds as the dropped review proceedings, violating the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions under the JVAT Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by the State of Jharkhand were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order that restored the original assessment orders and denied the Additional Commissioner's revision.
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Both the writ petitions involve identical question of facts and law and the same were tagged together to be heard simultaneously.
3. W.P.(T) No. 3229 of 2020 pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15 and W.P.(T) No. 3246 of 2020 pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14. Instant writ applications have been filed by Petitioner-State of Jharkhand primarily assailing the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal in Revision Case No. RN 31 of 2019 and Revision Case No. RN 30 of 2019; wherein the learned Tribunal has allowed the revision applications filed by Respondent No.1-M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., and in consequence thereof, has quashed and set aside the orders both dated 25.04.2019 passed in C.C (S) Case No. 301(A) of 2019 and C.C.(S) Case No. 301 of 2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The brief facts of both the cases as detailed in both the writ applications are identical to each other and learned State Counsel, during arguments, referred to the facts of W.P.(T) No. 3246 of 2020; thus, the said case is treated as lead case and the facts thereof are being noted herein-below in brief.
5. Respondent No.1- M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. is primarily engaged in the business of carrying out works contract in the State of Jharkhand and other States and is duly registered under the provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to be referred as ‘JVAT Act, 2005’).
6. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, an assessment order dated 04.01.2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Circle, Ranchi and, pursuant to the assessment order, an excess Demand Notice was issued dated 04.01.2017, wherein a sum of Rs.1,41,73,237/- was determined to be refundable to Respondent No.1.
7. Similarly, for the Assessment Year 2014-15, assessment order dated 10.01.2017 was passed by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Circle, Ranchi and even in the said year, an excess Demand Notice dated 16.01.2017 was issued to Respondent No.1 showing payment of excess tax of a sum of Rs.6,71,54,829/-.
8. In view of the admitted fact that during Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, excess tax payment was determined for an amount of Rs.1,41,73,237/- and Rs.6,71,54,829/- respectively, Respondent No.1, in respect of both the years, on 27.05.2017, filed statutory applications for refund under Section 52 of JVAT Act, 2005 read with Rule 19 of JVAT Rules, 2006 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Ranchi Division, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as ‘J.C.C.T. (Administration).
9. In terms of Section 52 read with Section 53, such application for refund is required to be processed by the department concerned within a period of six months and any delay in processing the application for refund attracts statutory interest payable @ 6% per annum beyond the period of six months’ delay in processing the application for refund.
10. Pursuant to refund applications filed by Respondent No.1, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Circle, Ranchi (for short ‘D.C.C.T.’) verified the said application for refund and vide its Letter No. 1044 dated 07.12.2018, forwarded both the applications for refund to J.C.C.T. (Administration) for its consideration, along with comment that refund should be granted.
11. However, J.C.C.T. (Administration), pursuant to the communication made by Assessing Authority, instead of granting refund to Respondent No.1, directed the Assessing Authority, vide its Letter No. 944 dated 12.12.2018, to initiate review proceedings against the original Assessment Orders, being order dated 04.01.2017 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and order dated 10.01.2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. Said review proce
The court established that the authority to review and revise assessment orders under the JVAT Act is limited and must adhere to procedural requirements, particularly regarding the initiation of revi....
The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exceeded jurisdiction by failing to act within one year as mandated under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, confirming procedural timeliness is essential i....
Section 56 of the VAT Act would reveal that the section has wide power, but seeking of permission by the assessing authority for making reassessment of the dealer is not conferred under the said prov....
The revisional powers under the Sales Tax Act are distinct from assessment powers, allowing for the correction of illegalities without infringing on the assessment of escaped turnover.
Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of writ petition.
The court affirmed that once a delegated authority has exercised revisionary powers under the OST Act, the original authority cannot reinitiate proceedings, ensuring that statutory appeals remain the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
