Jharkhand High Court
M/S Telco Construction Co.Ltd. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 May, 2016
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh, Shree Chandrashekhar
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 97 of 2011
....
M/s Telco Construction Equipment Co.Ltd., a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its office in Jamshedpur, through Sri Rudranil
Roy, son of late Rajat Roy, At Kharkai Road of Nildih, Jamshedpur, posted
as Senior Divisional Manager, Finance, Telcom.
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Secretary Cum Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3.Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur Circle,
Jamshedpur.
.... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, G.A.
-----
th
05/ 13 May, 2016
Per Virender Singh, C.J.:
1. It appears that while hearing Civil Review No.86 of 2010, a
contention was raised on behalf of the review petitioner (hereinafter to be
referred to as petitioner) that in W.P.(T) No.2604 of 2009, this Court affirmed
the order of remand passed by the Tribunal whereas, in W.P.(T) No.2590 of
2009 the writ petition was dismissed. In both the writ petitions, order dated
30.08.2008passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal was impugned by the petitioner. This Court after examining the order dated 30.08.2008 found that few facts recorded in order dated 14.09.2009 passed in W.P.(T) 2604 of 2009 were incorrect and hence, passed order dated 14.10.2011 for suo-motu review of the order passed in W.P.(T) 2604 of 2009. The order dated 14.10.2011 reads as under :
"From a bare perusal of the order dated 30.08.2008, copy of which has been annexed with this Civil Review Petition as Annexure-2, it is clear that the present petitioner, who was the writ petitioner in earlier round of litigations, claimed benefit for export sales which was rejected in sub-para-iv of para-12 of the order of Tribunal and matter has not been remanded to the Assessing Officer for re-examining the petitioner's pleas only other than with respect to benefits of export sales. It also appears that while deciding the W.P. (T) No.2604 of 2009 on 14.9.2009, the Division Bench .
proceeded with assumption that the order of remand, which has been passed by the Tribunal for other issues except the issue of export sales, has been passed for re-examining the issue of export sales also which in fact is not so. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that prima-facie there is error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 14.9.2009 passed in W.P.(T) No.2604 of 2009; therefore, a suo motu Review Petition be registered for review of the subject to the writ petitioner's contentions."
2. We have also perused the order dated 30.08.2008 and the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(T) No.2604 of 2009. We find that the claim for export sale benefits which was specifically rejected by the Tribunal in its order dated 30.08.2008 was not the subject which was remanded for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the order dated 14.09.2009 passed in W.P.(T) No.2604 of 2009 stands modified/clarified to the extent that the issues of export sale exemption and applicability of 1993 Notifications were not remanded for fresh adjudication.
3. The instant review petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification/clarification.
(Virender Singh, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar,J.) SI/