M/S Tirupati Traders vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4067 Jhar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    W.P (T) No. 1633 of 2021
                                             With
                                    W.P (T) No. 1669 of 2021
                                             With
                                    W.P (T) No. 1684 of 2021


             M/s Tirupati Traders, Hazaribagh         ---   --- Petitioner [WPT 1633/2021]
             M/s B.K. Traders, Hazaribagh             ---   --- Petitioner [WPT 1669/2021]
             M/s Goyal Enterprises, Bokaro            ---   --- Petitioner [WPT 1684/2021]

                                              Versus
              The State of Jharkhand and others       --- --- Respondents [All cases]
                                                   ---

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

---

For the Petitioners Mr. N.K. Pasari & Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocates For the Respondents: M/ Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C-II [WPT 1684/21] Rohan Kashyap, A.C to G.A-II [WPT 1633/21] Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C to A.A.G-II [WPT 1669/21]

---

07 / 10.10.2022 Let W.P (T) Nos. 1669/2021 and 1684/2021 which are also on board today, be tagged along with the instant writ petition as, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, though they arise out of the different impugned judgment passed by the learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal.. W.P (T) No. 1633/2021 and 1669/2021 relates to Assessment Year 2009-10 while W.P (T) No. 1684/2021 relates to Assessment Year 2011-12.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not selling dealers. They are purchasing dealers. It has been submitted that on the allegation of issuance of fake Form-C by the purchasing dealer to the selling dealer at Rajasthan, huge loss has been caused to the State Exchequer of Government of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier also made deposit of tax during regular assessment. However, learned Tribunal has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 79(3) of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and directed them to approach the Appellate Court on deposit of 20% of the assessed tax which means that it does not take into account the taxes paid earlier. It is submitted that the issue also relates to the levy of penalty under section 40 (2) (b) of JVAT Act, 2005 as penalty is imposable prospectively with effect from the amendment introduced from 02.07.2014 by the Jharkhand Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2013. It does not operate retrospectively to impose penalty for the assessment year concerned in these writ petitions. It is

further submitted that the investigation are still pending. As such, petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and assessment and appellate orders.

3. Learned counsel fort Respondent State submits that counter affidavit has already been filed in these matters. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is allowed two weeks' time to file rejoinder thereto.

4. Let these cases appear after Diwali holidays. Let W.P (T) No. 1714/2021 be also listed along with the instant case as it relates to one of the petitioners involving similar issue concerning Assessment Year 2012-13. Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit in that case also.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

(Deepak Roshan, J) Ranjeet/