M/S. Sushila Traders vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2811 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                       W.P (T) No. 3037 of 2021
              M/s. Sushila Traders, through its Proprietor
              Shri Nand Kishor Prasad                         ---        ---    Petitioner
                                                    Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand
              2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, having
                 its Office at Project Bhawan, HEC Dhurwa, Ranchi
              3. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals),
                 Hazaribagh Division, District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
              4. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
                 Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh                      ---        ---    Respondents
                                                       ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan

---

              For the Petitioner          : M/s. Nitin Kumar Pasari & Sidhi Jalan, Advocates
              For the Respondents         : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II
                                                  ----
06 /21.07.2022       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner is before this Court as the learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal in its impugned judgment dated 27th January, 2020 (Annexure-10) dismissed the Revision Application no. HZ-122 of 2014 refusing to interfere in the order dated 1st August, 2014 passed by learned JCCT (Appeals), Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh (Annexure-5), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 79(3) of the JVAT Act, 2005 was dismissed only on the ground of non-deposit of 20% of the tax assessed. Learned Tribunal, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to move before Appellate Authority by depositing 20% of the assessed tax and in that case the Appellate Authority was asked to proceed, in accordance with law. Petitioner had deposited Rs. 4,00,000/- which is almost 25% of the assessed tax and penalty as per page-69 Challan in terms of the interim order dated 13.10.2014 passed by learned Tribunal in the pending revision on 17.10.2014. The total tax amount is Rs. 16,48,361/- as per the assessment order dated 21.04.2014 (Annexure-4).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned Tribunal did not take notice of proof of deposit of 25% of the amount of the assessed tax in terms of Section 79(3) of JVAT Act and erroneously dismissed the revision petition. There is no question of making a fresh deposit for the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. Interim order dated 13.10.2014 passed by learned Tribunal and deposit made through Challan at Page-69

of an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- against the assessed tax of Rs. 16,48,361/- has not been specifically disputed though relying upon the provisions of Section 79(3) of JVAT Act, the respondents have taken stand that the appeal before JCCT (Appeals) could not be admitted on failure to deposit Rs. 20% of the tax assessed.

5. It appears that the issue has unnecessary dragged the parties to this Court simply on account of an error of record on the part of the learned Tribunal. Considering the fact that the petitioner has submitted proof of deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- i.e., almost 25% of the assessed tax deposited in October, 2014, the matter requires consideration by JCCT (Appeals). Since the litigation has consumed sufficient time, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal when the main appeal requires consideration by JCCT (Appeals) on merits. It is however made clear that the Tribunal had specifically declined the amendment application seeking to challenge the order dated 7th July, 2015 passed by DCCT, Ramgarh Circle Ramgarh under Section 35(6) of JVAT Act imposing tax and penalty of Rs. 25,93,936.00 and observed that it being an independent cause of action, petitioner ought to have taken remedy available to it or any other legal remedy which he has not done. Therefore, the present order is confined to the effective direction passed by learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand Ranchi on the main revision petition. The observations of learned Tribunal regarding rejection of the appeal on the ground of failure to make pre-deposit do not stand in the aforesaid circumstances undisputed by the respondents.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Deepak Roshan, J) jk/