Jharkhand High Court
M/S Tata Steel Limited (A Company ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 24 September, 2018
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D.N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No.7597 of 2018
in
W.P.(T) No.4230 of 2018
M/s Tata Steel Limited (A Company incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956) having its registered office at Bombay House, 24 HomI Mody Street,
Mumbai 400001; having its Manufacturing Unit at Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S.
Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum through its Chief, Legal
(Corporate Services) namely, Meena Lall, aged about 52 years wife of Shri
Behari Lall, resident of 2nd Floor, 'B' Block 228, GK - 1, P.O. and P.S. GK.-1,
New Delhi 110048 ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary -cum- Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District-Ranchi
2. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur
Division, P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
3. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur,
P.O. and P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.G.
Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A.
----------------------------
02/Dated 24th September, 2018
Oral Order:
Per: D.N. Patel, J.
1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the notices of the re- assessment which are at Annexures-4, 11 and 16 mainly on the ground that the period of limitation for re-assessment as per sub-Section 4 of Section 40 of the Act, 2005 prescribes the period of five years from the end of the year in respect of or part of which the tax is assessible.
2. This writ petition is for assessment year 2012-13 and therefore period of limitation will start from 1st April, 2013 and the period of limitation will be over as on 31st March, 2018.
3. Admittedly, the order of re-assessment has not been passed till today.
4. This writ petition is Admitted.
25. Learned counsel Mr. Atanu Banerjee waives notice of admission on behalf of respondents.
6. This matter will be heard along with W.P.(T) No.4397 of 2014, W.P.(T) No.4415 of 2014, W.P.(T) No.6225 of 2014, W.P.(T) No.6226 of 2014 and W.P. (T) No.4227 of 2018 and such other similarly situated matters which are already admitted and the stay has been granted by this Court.
7. All these writ petitions will be heard together and the Registry is, hereby, directed to enlist this writ petition along with other writ petitions, as mentioned hereinabove on 25th October, 2018, under the heading 'For Hearing'.
I.A. No.7597 of 20188. By way of filing this interlocutory application, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for staying the operation, implementation and execution of Annexures-4, 11 and 16 of W.P.(T) No.4230 of 2018.
9. So far as interim relief is concerned, it appears that in the facts of the present case, the assessment year involved in this case is 2012-13. Assessment order has already been passed by the respondent as on 31st March, 2016. Audit objection has been raised on 3rd April, 2017 which was received by the respondent-Government. Notice, under Section 40(1) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2005" for the sake of brevity), was given on 10th April, 2017 which was received by this petitioner as on 16th May, 2017. With audit report preliminary objection was raised that a notice ought to have been given under sub-Section 3 of Section 42 of the Act, 2005 in a proper format and later on it was given under sub-Section 3 of Section 42 of the Act, 2005 by the respondents, but, the fact remains that re-assessment has not been completed within a period of five years as required under Sub-Section 4 of Section 40 of the Act, 2005. Moreover, the words which are used under Section 42(3) are materially different from the words which are used in sub- Section (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act, 2005. Meaning thereby to, the period of limitation has been extended for further period of three years under sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the Act, 2005 whereas, there is no extension of period of limitation under sub-Section 3 of Section 42 of the Act, 2005, especially for re-assessment to be completed within a period of five years as prescribed under sub-Section 4 of Section 40 of the Act, 2005.
3Taxing statutes are to be interpreted strictly. The words which are used under sub-Section 1 and 2 of Section 42- "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act ..........." are missing in sub-Section 3 of Section 42 of the Act, 2005, hence, prima facie the period of limitation is over as on 31 st March, 2018 as per sub-Section 4 of Section 40 of the Act, 2005. Hence, there is a more than prima facie case in favour of this petitioner. Balance of convenience is also in favour of this petitioner and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. We, therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of Annexures-4, 11 and 16 to this writ petition during the pendency and final hearing of this writ petition.
10. I.A. No.7597 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) NKC/Tarun