Jharkhand High Court

Tata Steel Limited (A Company ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                     2025:JHHC:20787-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P. (T) No. 411 of 2025
TATA STEEL LIMITED (A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956/2013), having its registered office at Bombay
House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001; having its
Manufacturing Unit at Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, P.O. and
P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum through its Chief
Legal Counsel (Indirect Taxation) namely, Vikash Mittal, aged about
53 years, son of Shri H.K. Mittal, resident of 26, Kaiser Bungalow,
Inner Circle Road, C.H. Area, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur,
Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN-831001, Jharkhand.
                                                        ...    Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of
   Commercial Taxes/State Taxes Department, having its office at
   Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi,
   Jharkhand, PIN-834004.
2. Additional Commissioner of State Taxes/Joint Commissioner of
   State Taxes, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.
   Sakchi, District East Singhbhum.
3. Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes (Urban Circle), Jamshedpur,
   P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum.
                                                    ...     Respondents
                          ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                          ---------
For the Petitioner:       Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
                          Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
                          Mrs. Shilpi Sandil, Advocate
                          Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
                          Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
                          ---------
03/Dated: 28.07.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral)

1. Heard.

2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,

including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside

2025:JHHC:20787-DB

order bearing no. 356 dated 05.10.2024 [Annexure-15],

pertaining to the Assessment Period 2012-13, wherein

Respondent No. 3 has declared that the proceedings

initiated against the Petitioner for assessment under

Section 11(5) of the Jharkhand Entry Tax on

Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2011 is not barred

by limitation by relying upon the provisions of Section

14 of the aforesaid Act.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,

including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the very

initiation and continuance of proceedings under the

provisions of the Jharkhand Entry Tax on Consumption

or Use of Goods Act, 2011 against the Petitioner for the

Assessment Year 2012-13 is barred by limitation and is,

thus, void ab initio.

3. In the earlier round of litigation between the same parties, this

Court passed a detailed judgment dated 21.02.2023 in W.P. (T)

No.1953 of 2021 and analogous cases running into as many as 19

pages which was precisely devoted to considering the issue of

limitation as raised by the petitioner herein. For better appreciation, it

will be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 20 of the said judgment

which reads as under:-

"20. Since the issue of limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction of

the assessing authority to initiate the proceedings, as such

contradictory stands by the respondents in the assessment

proceedings and at different stages of the present writ

proceedings do give rise to contradiction as to the actual date of

2025:JHHC:20787-DB

commencement of the period of limitation under Section 11(5) of

the Entry Tax Act, 2011 for the purposes of initiating the

proceedings against the petitioner who was an unregistered

assessee. The vires of the Entry Tax Act, 2011 was struck down by

the judgment dated 3rd April 2012 rendered in W.P.(T) No.5696

of 2011 in the case of the petitioner and several others. Civil

Appeal No.8275/2012 preferred by the State was decided vide

judgment dated 22nd March 2017 that means the Act of 2011 was

revived on the statute book from that date. The present assessment

proceedings pertains to assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13,

2013-14, 2014-15, 2012-13, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and as such the

date of commencement of the limitation period under Section

11(5) of the Act is crucial for the purposes of initiation of the

proceedings against the petitioner. Petitioner has in the grounds

of challenge before this Court taken a specific plea that the

proceedings were barred by limitation being beyond the two years

period from the date of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court

in Civil Appeal No.8275/2012 i.e. 22nd March 2017 since the

show-cause notice was issued on 10th May 2019 i.e. after two

years. As observed herein above, even for the period 2017-18

(01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017) the Assessing Officer has reckoned

the period of limitation as starting from 09.10.2017 the date of

judgment in Father William Fernandes (supra) which does not

apply to the present proceedings under the 2011 Act.

As noticed above, the respondents have been taking

shifting and contradictory stands from time to time. Therefore,

since the very issue of commencement of limitation for initiation

2025:JHHC:20787-DB

of proceedings under Section 11(5) having come under a cloud

which goes to the root of jurisdiction of the assessing officer to

initiate such proceedings, it would be proper to remand the matter

to the assessing officer to take a fresh decision in accordance with

law including on the issue of limitation for initiation of

proceedings. Since the matter is being remanded for the above

reasons, we consciously refrain from making any comments on

the merits of the case or on the question of ante-dating of the

order passed on the preliminary objection."

4. It was thereafter that the writ applications filed by the petitioner

were allowed and the matter was remanded back to the competent

authority for deciding the issue of limitation after quashing the

assessment orders dated 01.12.2020 and 02.12.2020. However, the

competent authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent, vide the impugned order

dated 05.10.2024, in the most rash and brazen manner, without even

considering the observation made by this Court, proceeded to pass

the following orders:-

"dk;kZy;] jkT;&dj la;qDr vk;qDr] ukxjh; vapy] te'ksniqj la[;k & 356 fnukad & 05/10/24 lsok esa] loZJh VkVk LVhy fy0] fc"Vqiqj] te'ksniqjA TIN - 20251001839 Period - 2012-13 egksn;] izos'k dj vf/kfu;e 2011 dh /kkjk 14 ftlds vuqlkj "Except a proceeding under sub-section (5) of section 11 and sub-section (1) and (2) of section 13, no proceeding for assessment of the tax payable by an assessee under this Act in respect of any period

2025:JHHC:20787-DB

shall be initiated and completed except before the expiry of two years from the expiry of such period. Provided that a proceeding for re-assessment in pursuance of or as a result of an order on appeal, revision and reference or review shall be initiated and completed before the expiry of two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority." Period of limitation of completion of assessment proceedings dks ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA blesa /kkjk 11(5) ,oa 13(1), 13(2) dks NksM+dj nks o"kZ dh le;&lhek ifjHkkf"kr gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa O;olk;h dk dkyckf/kr gksus dk nkok dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA O;olk;h dks iqu% ,d vafre volj nsrs gq, fnukad 24/10/24 dks lquok;h fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd mDr frfFk dks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa leLr ys[kkiqLr ds lkFk iwokZgu 11:00 cts mifLFkr gksosaA foQy jgus ij ,d i{kh; vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;k tk,xkA g0/-