Jharkhand High Court
Tata Engineering And Locomotive ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(T) No. 4630 of 2022
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., Tata Motors
Ltd. previously known as (Tata Engineering and Locomotive
Company Ltd.) through Anand Vardhan -Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Commissioner, Transport Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. District Transport Officer, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur -- Respondents
---
CORAM: Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
--
For the Petitioner : Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C to A.A.G-II
----
08/18.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Writ petitioner has again approached this Court this time seeking to
challenge the demand notice bearing no. 2465 dated 4th August, 2022
(Annexure-9) issued by District Transport Officer, Singhbhum East,
Jamshedpur (respondent no. 4) directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.
21,31,58,146.00/- as penalty @ 200%. The main grievance of the petitioner as
canvassed by learned counsel Ms. Rashmi Kumar is that before undertaking the
exercise of computation petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing.
3. In order to understand the backdrop of present controversy, it is
desirable to refer to the detailed judgment rendered by this Court on the instant
subject matter relating to earlier demand notice dated 27 th September, 2019
issued by the same respondent-District Transport Officer. The judgment dated
25th January, 2021 passed in W.P (T) No. 6842 of 2019 has encapsulated the
entire history of the litigation starting from the decision of the Patna High
Court reported in (1998) 3 PLJR 457 [M/s. Tata Eng. & Locomotive Co.
Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar], the interim order dated 1st August, 2003 and the final
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5299-5304 of
2003 dated 14th December, 2018 arising from the judgment of Patna High
Court. Since the judgment dated 25th January, 2021 contains the entire
discussion on the subject, the operative paragraphs thereof is quoted for proper
appreciation:
17. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in the
entire gamut of facts, provisions of law and the decisions rendered by the Patna High
Court in the case of the same petitioner (Annexure-1) 1998 3 PLJR 457, the Full Bench
judgment of this Court reported in (2003) 1 JLJR 601; and also the decision of the Apex
Court dated 14.12.2018 reported in 2019 2 JCR 213 (SC). We may in the background of
these facts taken note above, at the outset, observe that the liability of the petitioner to
pay tax under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is no longer in dispute or res
integra by virtue of the decision rendered by the Apex Court dated 14.12.2018 of which
copious reference has been made in the forgoing paragraphs of this order.
We may also observe that in terms of the interim order dated 01.08.2003
passed by the Apex Court in the instant civil appeals, the Apex Court refused to grant
any interim relief to the appellant in respect of the period 1994-95 to 2001-02 at that
stage except with regard to demand for penalty which had already been stayed and
which stay were to continue till the disposal of the appeal. However, so far as future
realizations were concerned, it was ordained that the appellant i.e. petitioner herein
shall pay the amounts either under Section 5 or under Section 6 whichever rate is higher
to the respondents subject to the appellant giving an undertaking in writing that in the
event the appellant is found liable to pay both the amount under Section 5 and under
Section 6, it will pay the difference to the respondents together with interest calculated
@ 12% per annum. At para7 of the judgment, the Apex Court also took note that all
those appellants fell in the category of manufacturers or dealers of the motor vehicles.
They had paid taxes under Section 7(4) of the Bihar Act. Likewise, in respect of those
vehicles retained and used by the appellants for their own purpose and not sold, the
appellants had discharged their tax liability under Section 5 of the Bihar Act as well.
Apparently, the tax liability under Section 6 of the Bihar Act remained undischarged in
full on the part of the appellants despite the interim order dated 01.08.2003. Petitioner
at para-17 of its supplementary affidavit has also categorically stated that it had an
original tax liability of Rs. 11,27,46,200/- from which an amount of Rs. 61,67,125/- was
deposited by it. It is further stated that in order to show bonafide on its part, after the
disposal of the Civil Appeals vide judgment dated 14.12.2018, it has deposited the
balance amount of Rs. 10,65,79,075/- by a demand draft dated 07.01.2020.
18. In this background facts and decisions of the Apex Court, the Audit took note of
the outstanding tax liability of the petitioner for the period 2002-03 to 2018-19 under
the Jharkhand Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 2009, as per Section 6, the rates of which
are specified in Schedule-III to be paid by a dealer/manufacturer of motor vehicles in
respect of motor vehicles in his possession during the course of his business. The
outstanding trade tax on the number of vehicles/chassis manufactured by the petitioner
during this period was thus computed. The rates of penalty has been prescribed under
Section 23 read with Rule 4 of the Taxation Rules as also referred to at para-27 and 28 of
the judgment of the Apex Court. Penalty has been computed on the outstanding tax
liability @ 200% which apparently is the highest rate in cases where the tax is paid
beyond 90 days after the due date. Interest @ 12 % appears to have been computed in
terms of the interim order of the Apex Court dated 01.08.2003 and after computing the
total trade tax liability + penalty + interest to the tune of Rs. 44,95,20,908/-, the amount
deposited by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 61,67,125/- have been deducted therefrom to raise
the gross demand of Rs. 44,33,53,873/-.
As we have noted hereinabove, the liability of the petitioner to pay tax under
Section 6 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act has been settled by the decision of
the Apex Court. As per the case of the petitioner, at para-17 of the supplementary
affidavit, it had an original tax liability of Rs. 11,27,46,200/-, against which it had
deposited only Rs. 61,67,125/-. The amount of penalty thereupon computable in terms
of Section 23 read with Rule 4 of the Taxation Rules have been levied by the taxing
authority.
19. We, however while observing as above, do not in any manner intend to go into
the correctness of the computation of the liability under tax, penalty or interest in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. Petitioner has straightaway approached this Court without
availing the alternative remedy available in law. Once the liability under Section 6 of the
Act stood affirmed, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not required to engage in
the calculation or computation of the tax liability under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Having held as above, we however leave it open for the petitioner to approach
the respondent No.-4, District Transport Officer, Singhbhum East in case of any dispute
in respect of computation of the demand of total tax liability coupled with penalty and
interest thereupon which may be considered in accordance with law. Needless to say
petitioner if so aggrieved thereby may avail the alternative remedy available in law. We
make it clear that any observation made hereinabove are only for the purposes of
arriving at a decision on the question of interference in the impugned demand notice in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. It shall not influence the decision of the
assessing authority in this regard. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
4. The present controversy has again been raised before this Court
on fresh computation of demand made by District Transport Officer, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the representation made by the petitioner
through letter dated 12th February, 2021 pursuant to the observations made
by this Court in the concluding paragraph of judgment dated 25 th January,
2021. The legal issue relating to liability of the petitioner to pay trade tax
has been settled by virtue of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
relation to the provisions of Section 6 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act. The amount of penalty is computable upon the original tax liability in
terms of Section 23 read with Rule 4 of the Taxation Rules. Therefore, the
present challenge does not relate to adjudication of any legal issue on the
liability of payment of trade tax, interest and penalty thereupon by the
petitioner. However, petitioner instead of making due payment of its
liability, has approached this Court in fourth round of litigation being
aggrieved by the computation of penalty as no opportunity of hearing was
given. We do not approve of such approach on the part of the petitioner.
[See Union of India & Anr. Vrs. Jesus Sales Corporation, (1996) 4 SCC
69 para-5 and Patel Engineering Limited Vrs. Union of India & Anr.,
(2012) 11 SCC 257 para-38].
5. This Court on the previous occasion had abundantly made it clear
that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of District Transport
Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the question of computation of
demand of tax liability coupled with penalty and interest thereupon, he may
avail the alternative remedy available in law. Therefore we reiterate the said
observation and are not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J)
(Deepak Roshan, J)
jk/
