Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Tata Teleservices Limited vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 March, 2022
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(C) No. 29127 of 2019)
M/S TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(C) No. 29180 of 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(C) No. 29795 of 2019)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal Nos. 687, 691 and 705 of 2018 respectively, reversing the decision of the Single Judge, who amongst others, held that in the facts of the present case, the reassessment was possible only under Section 21(3) of the Value Added Signature Not Verified Tax Act, 2005 within one calendar year from the concerned Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.03.16 17:16:37 IST Reason: year and resultantly the impugned order of reassessment has been passed without authority of law. 2 The Division Bench, however, was of the view that the issue raised by the appellant is essentially one of maintainability of the proceedings and should have been raised at the threshold at notice stage itself and not after the assessment order was passed.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties, there is no manner of doubt that the appellants had specifically raised preliminary objection before the assessing officer that the proposed action had become time-barred and hence notice under Section 21(7) of the VAT Act issued to the appellant(s) by the authority was illegal and unjust being void ab initio.
The assessment order passed by the competent authority, however, does not deal with this contention at all. That grievance had been made by way of writ petition, as the issue of limitation would go to the root of the matter being bordering on jurisdiction and authority of the officer concerned. The Single Judge accepted the said grievance of the appellant(s), as can be discerned from the observations in paragraph 34 of the judgment and answered the same in favour of the appellant(s).
3
The Division Bench, however, was of the opinion that the appellant(s) ought to take recourse to statutory remedy of appeal and the Single Judge should not have examined the matter any further. We disagree with the said view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
As the issue regarding limitation goes to the root of the matter, it could be taken as preliminary objection before the competent authority and the competent authority was under obligation to answer the same one way or the other. That being the grievance in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge justly addressed the said objection and answered it in favour of the appellants. Whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the said contention is tenable or otherwise ought to have been examined by the Division Bench on its own merits.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the Division Bench of the High Court for reconsideration of the restored/remanded writ appeal(s) on its own merits and in accordance with law.
4All contentions available to both sides are left open.
We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion either way on the merits of the issues to be dealt with in the remanded writ appeal(s). The parties to appear before the High Court on 18.04.2022, when the High Court may proceed to hear the remanded writ appeal(s) on that day or assign a suitable date for disposing of the same expeditiously. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
....................,J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI;
MARCH 14, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.26 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29127/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-10-2019 in WA No. 687/2018 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At Bilaspur) M/S TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 14589/2021 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 189472/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 192101/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) WITH SLP(C) No. 29180/2019 (IV-C) (FOR FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 189884/2019 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 189886/2019 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 192801/2019 FOR EARLY HEARING APPLICATION ON IA 14597/2021 IA No. 14597/2021 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 189886/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 189884/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 192801/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) SLP(C) No. 29795/2019 (IV-C) (IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 192885/2019 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 192887/2019 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 193090/2019 FOR EARLY HEARING APPLICATION ON IA 14594/2021 IA No. 14594/2021 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION IA No. 192887/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 192885/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 193090/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) 6 Date : 14-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(S) Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocate Mr. Vinayak Mathur, Advocate Ms. Anishka Gupta, Advocate Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate, AOR For Respondent(S) Mr. Sourav Roy, Dy. A.G. For Chhattisgarh Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Standing Counsel For Chhattisgarh Mr. Prabudh Singh, Advocate Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Devika Khanna, Advocate Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Advocate Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file]