Bombay High Court
Joint Venture Of Whessoe Oil And Gas ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 8 October, 2020
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Abhay Ahuja
13-WPST-93206.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 93206 OF 2020
M/s. Joint Venture of Whessoe Oil and Gas Limited
And Punj Llyod Limited through Punj Llyod Limited ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Rahul Thakar a/w Mr. C.B. Thakar for the petitioners.
Smt. S.D. Vyas, "B" Panel counsel for the respondent State.
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2020 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) P.C.:
Heard Mr. Thakar learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Vyas learned AGP for the State.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30/3/2020 passed by Respondent no. 3 under section 25 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
3. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is seen that the original nilegaonkar 1/5 13-WPST-93206.20.odt assessment order was passed on 22/12/2014 for the assessment period 1/04/2008 to 31/03/2009 under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. In the assessment order Assessing Officer allowed various deductions.
4. After noticing certain discrepancies, notice was issued to the Petitioner under section 25 of the aforesaid Act on 12/03/2020 for review of the assessment order fixing 30/3/2020 for verification. Petitioner requested for an adjournment. However, by the impugned order dated 30/03/2020, request for adjournment was rejected on the ground that limitation for passing the order under section 25 was expiring on 31/3/2020. Thereafter, the following order was passed on review:
"1. The revision order is passed.
2. The Labour charges deduction allowed by the assessing officer is disallowed and taxed under MVAT Act.
3. The high seals sale shown by the dealer is also disallowed and taxed under MVAT Act.
4. Due to disallowance of High seas sale and labour charges deduction, the standard deduction u/r 58 @ 30% is allowed at Rs.365667179/-.
5. The balance tax able contract receipt of Rs.853223419/- is taxed as per purchase ratio, hence the tax payable at Rs.83794265/-.
6. The ITC of Rs.2050247/- is disallowed due to non- submission of ITC verification documents.nilegaonkar 2/5
13-WPST-93206.20.odt
7. The TDS credit allowed by the Assessing officer is confirmed in revision order.
8. The tax paid credit allowed by the assessing officer is confirmed in revision order.
9. Therefore the balance tax payable at Rs.58996524/-.
10. The MVAT refund already granted at Rs.28662300/-, hence, it is now recoverable. The interest u/s.51(6)(b) of MVAT Act levied on refund recoverable at Rs.28662300/- from the date of refund granted.
11. The interest u/s.30(3) of MVAT Act is levied at Rs.128169544/- up to date of revision order.
12. The total dues payable at Rs.242081465/-."
5. Obviously, by the impugned order, Petitioner has been saddled with substantial amount of tax in reversal of the assessment order.
6. Question for consideration is whether the order passed under section 25 which is prejudicial to the Petitioner could have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner or whether issuance of notice for verification would meet the requirement of reasonable opportunity of hearing?
7. That apart, the order impugned was passed on 30/3/2020 when the entire country including the State of Maharashtra was under lock down on account of the COVID 19 pandemic.
8. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that unlike the Ordinance promulgated by the President nilegaonkar 3/5 13-WPST-93206.20.odt extending limitation period for certain central acts, no such Ordinance has been promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra extending the limitation period for state enactments.
9. While it is true that the review proceeding was fast approaching the end of limitation period on 31/3/2020 which may have compelled respondent no. 4 to pass the impugned order on 30/3/2020, the fact that the original assessment order was passed way back on 22/12/2014 for a distant assessment period of 2008 to 2009 cannot also be overlooked. If the assessment order was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, certainly recourse to section 25 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ought to have been taken promptly instead of issuing notice towards the fag end of the limitation period.
10. The above issues may require consideration of the Court.
11. Issue notice to the respondents returnable within six weeks.
12. Ms.Vyas learned AGP waives notice for all the respondents.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the above, there shall be stay of the impugned order dated 30/3/2020 until further orders.
nilegaonkar 4/5
13-WPST-93206.20.odt
14. Stand over to 26/11/2020.
15. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. Associate/Sheristedar of this Court is permitted to forward the Petitioner copy of this order by e-mail. All concerned to act on digitally signed copy of this order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Digitally signed by Hemant V. Hemant V. Nilegaonkar Nilegaonkar Date: 2020.10.09 14:01:28 +0530 nilegaonkar 5/5