h) For any other appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) as may
be deemed fit and proper by your Lordships for doing substantial and
conscionable justice to the Petitioner.
c) For a further declaration that the Notification no. S.O.1 dated 7.5.2011
(Annexure-10) issued under the signature of the Secretary-cum-
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department Jharkhand, Ranchi in the
purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (iii) of Section 1 of said
Jharkhand Ordinance no.2 of 2011 giving retrospective effect from
1.4.2006 to said sub-section (3) of Section 42 inserted by the said
Ordinance is ultra vires to the said Ordinanceincluding section 1(iii)
thereof in so far as it gives such retrospective effect, because power of
giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the said Ordinance has not
been conferred by the legislature upon the State Government under said
section 1(iii) of the said Ordinance and in absence of the same, the State
Government cannot give retrospective effect to any of the provisions of
the said Ordinance including section 16 thereof by which said sub-
section (3) of Section 42 of the Act has been inserted.
d) For quashing of the reassessment proceeding initiated u/s 42(3) of the
Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005; on the basis of Audit objection;
by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle,
Ramgarh vide order sheet dated 30.7.2014 for the period 2007-08 as
contained in Annexure-4 because he failed to record his satisfaction on
the basis of some information tothe effect that he has reason to believe
that whole or any part of the Turnover of the dealer/Petitioner in respect
of any period has either been:
iii) been assessed at a rate lower than the rate on which it is
assessable;
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
iv) been wrongly allowed any deduction therefrom; or;
v) been wrongly allowed any credit therein.
e) For quashing of the notice being no. 2002 dated 30.7.2014 for the
year 2007-08, contained in Annexure-5 issued by the Deputy
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh u/s 42(3)
of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
f) For quashing of the reassessment-cum-penalty order dated 22.9.2014
(Annexure-7) passed u/s 40(1) and 37(6) of the Jharkhand Value Added
TaxAct, 2005 in the said proceeding initiated u/s 42(3) of the said Act for
the financial year 2007-08 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh.
g) For quashing the demand notice no.3357 dated 22.9.2014 for the year
2007-08 in Form JVAT 300 (Annexure-6) issued by the Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh arising
out of the aforesaid impugned reassessment-cum-penalty order dated
22.9.2014 (Annexure-7).
h) For any other appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) as may be
deemed fit and proper by your Lordships for doing substantial and
conscionable justice to the Petitioner.
Most Respectfully Sheweth:-
1. That in the instant writ application the petitioner above named prays
for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) from this Hon'ble
Court for the following reliefs:-
a) For a declaration that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 42 of
the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 regarding reassessment,
inserted in the said Act by Jharkhand Ordinanceno.2 of 2011 i.e.
Jharkhand Value Added Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011 (Annexure-
10) by section 16 thereof published in the Official Gazette on 1.10.2011
and also by Jharkhand Act 22, 2011 i.e. Jharkhand Value Added Tax
(Amendment) Act, 2011 (Annexure-10/1) by section 16 thereof is not
applicable for the financial year 2008-09 and the only provision for
making reassessment for the said year is section 40(1) of the Jharkhand
Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and in view of the then sub-section (2) of
section 40, now renumbered as sub-section (4) of section 40 of the said
Act, no order of reassessment can be made under said sub-section (1) of
section 40 after the expiry of 5 years from the end of the year as defined
u/s 2 (lxiv) to mean the financial year.
b) For a declaration that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 42 of
the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 inserted in the said
Act byJharkhand Ordinance no.2 of 2011 i.e. Jharkhand Value Added
Tax (Amendment) Ordinance,
2011 (Annexure-10) by section 16 thereof published in the Official
Gazette on 1.10.2011 and also by Jharkhand Act 22, 2011 i.e.
Jharkhand Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2011 (Annexure-10/1)
by section 16 thereof is arbitrary, discriminatory, oppressive,
confiscatory, unreasonable and invalid being violative of Articles 14 and
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and as such the same is
unconstitutional ultra vires and therefore not sustainable.
c) For a further declaration that the Notification no. S.O.1 dated 7.5.2011
(Annexure-11) issued under the signature of the Secretary-cum-
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department Jharkhand, Ranchi in the
purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (iii) of Section 1 of said
Jharkhand Ordinance no.2 of 2011 giving retrospective effect from
1.4.2006 to said sub-section (3) of Section 42 inserted by the said
Ordinance is ultra vires to the said Ordinance including section 1(iii)
thereof in so far as it gives such retrospective effect because power of
giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the said Ordinance has not
been conferred by the legislature upon the State Government under said
section 1(iii) of the said Ordinance and in absence of the same, the State
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
Government cannot give retrospective effect to any of the provisions of
the said Ordinance including section 16 thereof by which said sub-
section (3) of Section 42 of the Act has been inserted.
d) For quashing of the reassessment proceeding (Annexure-4) for the
financial year 2008-09; for making reassessment on the basis of Audit
objection contained in Annexure-3 by the Deputy Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes, Singhbhum Circle, Jamshedpur because such
proceeding for making reassessment if deemed to have been initiated
under the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 42 of the JVAT Act, then
the said sub-section (3) of section 42 of the said Act is not applicable for
the financial year 2008-09 and the only provision for making
reassessment for the said year is section 40(1) of the Jharkhand Value
Added Tax Act, 2005 and even if it is deemed to have been initiated
under sub-section (1) of section 40 of the said Act, then also the same is
not sustainable because he failed to record his satisfaction on the basis
of some information to the effect that he has reason to believe that whole
any part ог of the Turnover of the dealer/Petitioner in respect of any
period has either been:
i) escaped assessment; or
ii) been under assessed; or
iii) been assessed at a rate lower than the rate on which it is
assessable;
iv) been wrongly allowed any deduction therefrom; or;
v) been wrongly allowed any credit therein.
e) For quashing of the reassessment order dated 12.9.2014 (Annxure-8)
passed under sections 40(1)(d) and 42(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added
Tax Act, 2005 for the financial year 2008-09 by the Commercial Taxes
Officer, Singhbhum Circle, Jamshedpur.
f) For quashing the demand notice no.5922 dated 17.10.2014 for the
year 2008-09 in Form JVAT 300 (Annexure-7), issued by the Commercial
Taxes Officer, Singhbhum Circle, Jamshedpur arising out of
the aforesaid impugned reassessment order dated 12.9.2014 (Annexure-
8).
g) For a declaration that in any view of the matter, the aforesaid
impugned reassessment order (Annexure-8) by which tax has been
imposed on the amount of subsidy received by the petitioner
from theGovernment of India on sale of fertilizers is not sustainable in
view of settled law in this regard by the 3 member Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited vrs.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Cuddalore and another, reported in (2001) 9
SCC 648 wherein it has been held, interalia, that such subsidy does not
form part of the bargain between the manufacturer and the purchaser of
the fertilizer and it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a part of the
taxable turnover. This decision has been relied upon by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court for taking the same view in the case of Commissioner of
Taxes, Guahati and others Bongaigaon vrs. Refinery
& Pertrochemicals Ltd., reported in (2006) 147 STC 358 (SC).
h) For any other appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) as may
be deemed fit and proper by your Lordships for doing substantial and
conscionable justice to the Petitioner.
1. That in the instant writ application the petitioner is praying for
issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) from this Hon'ble
Court for the following reliefs :-
a. For a declaration that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section
42 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 inserted in the said Act
by Jharkhand Ordinance No. 2 of 2011 i.e Jharkhand Value Added Tax
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2011 (Annexure-6) by section 16 thereof
published in the official Gazette on 01.10.2011 and also by Jharkhand
Act 22, 2011 ie Jharkhand value Added Tax Act (Amendment) Act, 2011
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
(Annexure-6/1) by section 16, inasmuch as it mandates the assessing
officer to initiate reassessment on the basis of objection/observation by
the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is arbitrary, discriminatory,
oppressive, confiscatory, unreasonable and being violative of Articles
Article 14, 19(i)(g), 148, 149, 151, 221 and 265 of the Constitution of
India and The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Duties, Powers
and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
B. For a further declaration that the Notification No. S.O.1 dated
07.05.2011 (Annexure-7) issued under the of the Secretary-cum-
Commissioner, signature Commercial Taxes Department Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi in the purported exercise of powers conferred by
clause (iii) of Section 1 of said Jharkhand Ordinance no. 2 of 2011 giving
retrospective effect from 01.04.2006 to said sub-section (3) of Section 42
inserted by the said Ordinance is Ultra vires to the said Ordinance
including section 1(iii) thereof in so far as it gives such retrospective
effect because power of giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the
said Ordinance has not been conferred by the legislature upon the
delegate i.e. state Government under said section 1(iii) of the said
Ordinance and in absence of the same, the delegate i.e. the State
Government cannot give retrospective effect to any of the provisions of
the said Ordinance including 16 thereof by which said sub-section (3) of
Section 42 of the Act has been inserted.
C. Nature of For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the
declaration that comptroller and auditor general of India who is a
constitutional authority under chapter V of the constitution of India has
no jurisdiction or authority under the constitution or under any law
framed by the parliament to pronounce on law or have judicial
supervision over the quasi judicial acts of the authorities under the
Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and further declare that the
audit party of comptroller and auditor general perform essential
administrative or executive functions and accordingly conferment of
power under section 42(3) of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005
upon the comptroller and auditor general to pronounce on law and also
exercise judicial supervision over the quasi judicial acts of the authorities
under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is wholly without
jurisdiction and hence void ab initio.
d. For quashing and setting aside the Assessment Order dated
18.1.2016 (Annexure 10) passed under CST Act, whereby and
whereunder the respondent no.5 has passed the impugned order
invoking Section 42(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005
apart from being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction offending
Article 14, 19(i)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.
E) For issuance of an approproriate writ staying the operation of Section
42 (3) of the Jharkhand VAT Act until the disposal of the writ petition.
F) For issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents to
implement the aforesaid order or to give effect to the same and to stay
operation thereof during pendency of the present writ petition.
1. That in the instant writ application the petitioner is praying for
issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) from this Hon'ble
Court for the following reliefs :-
a. For a declaration that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section
42 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 inserted in the said Act
by Jharkhand Ordinance No. 2 of 2011 ie Jharkhand Value Added Tax
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2011 (Annexure-6) by section 16 thereof
published in the official Gazette on 01.10.2011 and also by Jharkhand
Act 22, 2011 i.e Jharkhand value Added Tax Act (Amendment) Act, 2011
(Annexure-6/1) by section 16, inasmuch as it mandates the assessing
officer to initiate reassessment on the basis of objection/observation by
the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is arbitrary, discriminatory,
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
oppressive, confiscatory, unreasonable and being violative of Articles
Article 14, 19(i)(g), 148, 149, 151, 221 and 265 of the Constitution of
India and The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Duties, Powers
and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
B. For a further declaration that the Notification No. S.O.1 dated
07.05.2011 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the Secretary-
cum-Commissioner, Government of Commercial Taxes Department
Jharkhand, Ranchi in the purported exercise of powers conferred by
clause (iii) of Section 1 of said Jharkhand Ordinance no. 2 of 2011 giving
retrospective effect from 01.04.2006 to said sub-section (3) of Section 42
inserted by the said Ordinance is Ultra vires to the said Ordinance
including section 1(iii) thereof in so far as it gives such retrospective
effect because power of giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the
said Ordinance has not been conferred by the legislature upon the
delegate i.e. state Government under said section 1(iii) of the said
Ordinance and in absence of the same, the delegate i.e. the State
Government cannot give retrospective effect to any of the provisions of
the said Ordinance including 16 thereof by which said sub-section (3) of
Section 42 of the Act has been inserted.
C. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of
declaration that comptroller and auditor general of India who is a
constitutional authority under chapter V of the constitution of India has
no jurisdiction or authority under the constitution or under any law
framed by the parliament to pronounce on law or have judicial
supervision over the quasi judicial acts of the authorities under the
Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and further declare that the
audit party of comptroller and auditor general perform essential
administrative or executive functions and accordingly conferment of
power under section 42(3) of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005
upon the comptroller and auditor general to pronounce on law and also
exercise judicial supervision over the acts of the authorities under
the quasi judicial Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is wholly
without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio.
d. For quashing and setting aside the Assessment Order dated
18.1.2016 (Annexure 10) passed under JVAT Act, whereby and
whereunder the respondent no.5 has passed the impugned order
invoking Section 42(3) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005
apart from being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction offending
Article 14, 19(i)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.
e. For issuance of an approproriate writ staying the operation of Section
42 (3) of the Jharkhand VAT Act until the disposal of the writ petition.
f. For issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents to
implement the aforesaid order or to give effect to the same and to stay
operation thereof during pendency of the present writ petition.
1. That, in the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for the
following reliefs inter alia:-
i. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ
of Declaration, declaring the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 42 of
the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, inserted in the said Act by
Jharkhand Act 22 of 2011, i.e. Jharkhand Value Added Tax
(Amendment) Act, 2011, by Section 16 thereof (Annexure-18), as wholly
illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, oppressive, confiscatory, unreasonable
and invalid being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India and, as such, the same is unconstitutional being ultra vires and,
therefore, not sustainable.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of
Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the Notice bearing No. 588 dated
10.04.2017 (Annexure-3) to the extent in the said Notice re-assessment
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner in exercise of power
under Section 40(1)(b) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as 'JVAT Act') pursuant to an audit objection
bearing No. IR No. 110/16-17 relating to Para-1 thereof, especially
because the said initiation of proceeding for re-assessment is wholly
without jurisdiction and void ab-initio.
(iii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ/order/direction, including
Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the Notice bearing No. 41
dated 03.04.2018 (Annexure-10) wherein proceeding for re-assessment
initiated vide Notice bearing No. 588 dated 10.04.2017 (Annexure-3)
under Section 40(1)(b) of the JVAT Act has been converted into a
proceeding under Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act, as being wholly without
jurisdiction and void ab initio.
(iv) For issuance of a further appropriate writ/order/direction including
Writ of Certiorari, quashing/setting aside the Notice bearing No. 7566
dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure-15), wherein proceeding for re-assessment
has been again initiated under Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act pursuant to
audit objection bearing IR No. 110/2016-17 relating to Para-1 thereof,
especially because initiation of the said re-assessment proceeding under
Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act is wholly without jurisdiction and is also
void ab initio.
(v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as
Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
1. That by way of the present writ application the petitioner above
named is praying for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s)
from this Hon'ble Court for the following relief:
a) For a declaration that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 42 of
the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 inserted in the said Act by
Jharkhand Ordinance No. 2 of 2011 i.e Jharkhand value Added Tax
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2011 (Annexure-7) by section 16 thereof
published in the official Gazette on 01.10.2011 and also by Jharkhand
Act 22, 2011 i.e Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (Amendment) Act,
2011 (Annexure-7/1) by section 16, inasmuch as it mandates the
assessing officer to initiate reassessment the basis of
objection/observation by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is
arbitrary, discriminatory, oppressive, confiscatory, unreasonable and
being violative of Article 14, 19(i)(g), 148, 149, 151, 221 and 265 of the
Constitution of India and The Comptroller and Auditor general of India
(Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
b. For a further declaration that the Notification No. S.O.1 dated
07.05.2011 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of the Secretary-
cum-Commissioner, Commercial taxes Department Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi in the purported exercise of powers conferred by
clause (iii) of Section 1 of said Jharkhand Ordinance no. 2 of 2011 giving
retrospective effect from 01.04.2006 to said Ordinance is Ultra vires to
the said Ordinance including section 1(iii) thereof in so far as it gives
such retrospective effect because power of giving retrospective effect to
the provisions of the said Ordinance has not been conferred by the
legislature upon the delegate i.e State Government under said section
1(iii) of the said Ordinance and in absence of the same, the
delegate ie the State Government cannot give retrospective effect to any
of the provisions of the said Ordinance including 16 thereof by which
said sub-section (3) of section 42 of the Act has been inserted.
c. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of
declaration that comptroller and auditor general of India who is a
constitutional authority under chapter V of the constitution of India has
no jurisdiction or authority under the constitution or under any law
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
framed by the parliament to pronounce on law or have judicial
supervision over the quasi judicial acts of the authorities under the
Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and further declare that the
audit party of Comptroller and auditor general perform essential
administrative or executive functions and accordingly conferment of
power under section 42(3) of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005
upon the comptroller and auditor General to pronounce on law and also
exercise judicial supervision over the quasi judicial acts of the authorities
under the Jharkhand value Added Tax Act, 2005 is wholly without
jurisdiction and hence void ab initio.
d. For quashing and setting aside the Revisional order dated
16.12.2021, passed in Revision Application no. HZ 18 of 2021
(Annexure-6), for the period 2008-09, by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal,
Jharkhand, Ranchi.
e. For quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.12.2019 as
contained in memo no. 124, Ranchi, Dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure-4),
passed in Suo-Motu Revision Case no. CC (s) 181/2015 by the
Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ranchi.
f. For quashing and setting aside the Revised/ re-assessment
Assessment Order dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure-3), passed by Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hazraibagh Circle, Hazaribagh
(Respondent No.4), whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 4 has
passed the impugned order invoking section 42(3) of the Jharkhand
Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and merely relying upon the audit objection,
without giving its independent finding/reasoning for re-opening the case
of the petitioner and making addition thereto being arbitrary, illegal and
without jurisdiction offending Article 14, 19(i)(g) and 265 of the
constitution of India and also for quashing and setting aside the
consequential demand Notice dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure-3/1).
g. For issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents from
operating, implementing and executing the aforesaid orders or to give
effect to the same during the pendency of the present writ petition.
h. For issuance of any other appropriate directions/orders as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the
petitioner."
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the
respective petitioners that the issue involved in all these writ
applications has been decided by this Court in W.P.(T) No.
3755 of 2013 (Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of
Jharkhand & Anr.). In the said case, the issue was as to
whether the proceeding for re-assessment initiated beyond
the period prescribed under the Act, is barred by limitation or
not and thus, consequently the impugned notice initiating the
proceeding, is void ab-initio or not and this court quashed
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
and set aside the impugned notices of re-assessment holding
therein that the same was barred by limitation.
It has been further informed by the Ld. Counsels
for the respective petitioners that the State has challenge the
aforesaid order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; however,
the Hon'ble Apex Court did not interfere with the order
passed by this Court in Jharkhand Ispat Ptv. Ltd. (supra) and
thus, the law is set at rest and since all these writ
applications involves the same questions with regard to
limitation; as such these writ petitions, be allowed in view of
the aforesaid judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondents could not
dispute the fact and submits that the issue involved in these
writ applications is covered by the judgment passed by this
court in the above referred case and the same has attained
finality.
4. To decide the respective writ applications, it would
be profitable to extracts certain facts of individual writ
applications.
(i) W.P.(T) No. 4397 of 2014; Tata Chemicals Limited
Period (2006-07)
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2012)
Annexures Particulars Page No.
Annexure- 1 Registration Certificate (Statement at Para 16 of 90
W.P.)
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
Annexure- 2 Original Assessment Order dated 25.02.2009 for 93
the Period 2006-07
(Statement at Para 19 of W.P.)
Annexure- 3 Original Demand Notice dated 27.02.2009 which 95
was paid
(Statement at Para 20 of W.P.)
Annexure- 4 Notice for hearing dated 08.02.2013 for 2006-07 97
with audit objection wherein the A.O. has not
recorded his own satisfaction
(Statement at Para 21 of W.P.)
Annexure- 5 Entire Order Sheet for 2006-07 wherein by order 103
Impugned sheet dated 13.05.2014, it was directed to issue
another notice (Page No. 104) for hearing u/s 42(3)
of the Act, in this order sheet also the A.O. has not
recorded his own satisfaction
(Statement at Para 24 of W.P.)
Annexure- 9 Pursuant to the above order sheet dated 122
Impugned 13.05.2014, a notice u/s 42(3) of the Act dated
13.04.2014 was issued for hearing. In this notice
also the A.O. has not recorded his own satisfaction
(Statement at Para 30 of W.P.)
Annexure- Reassessment Order dated 17.06.2014 u/s 42(3) 131
12 was passed. This order was passed simply
Impugned following the audit objection without satisfaction of
A.O.
(Statement at Para 35 of W.P.)
Annexure- Pursuant to the above Reassessment Order a 130
11 Demand Notice dated 17.06.2014 was issued
Impugned (Statement at Para 33 of W.P.)
(ii) Tata Chemicals Limited in W.P.(T) No. 4415 of 2014
Period (2007-08)
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2013)
Annexures Particulars Page
No.
Annexure- 1 Registration Certificate (Statement at Para 17 of 85
W.P.)
Annexure- 2 Original Assessment Order dated 17.03.2010 for the 88
Period 2007-08
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
Annexure- Notice for hearing dated 08.02.2013 for 2007-08 91
3/1 with audit objection wherein the A.O. has not
recorded his own satisfaction.
Annexure- 5 Entire Order Sheet for 2007-08 wherein A.O. has not 97
Impugned recorded his own satisfaction.
Annexure- 9 Reassessment Order dated 02.06.2014 for 2007-08. 113
Impugned This order was passed simply following the audit
objection without satisfaction of A.O.
Annexure- 8 Pursuant to the above re-assessment order, a 112
Demand Notice dated 28.07.2014 was issued.
Impugned
(iii) Tata Chemicals Limited in W.P.(T) No. 486 of 2015
Period (2008-09)
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2014)
Annexures Particulars Page
No.
Annexure- 2 Original Assessment Order dated 09.03.2011 for the 103
Period 2008-09
Annexure- 3 Notice for hearing dated 17.03.2012 for 2008-09 106
with audit objection wherein the A.O. has not
recorded his own satisfaction.
Annexure- 4 Entire Order Sheet for 2008-09 initiating proceeding 109
Impugned for reassessment vide order sheet dated 17.03.2012
wherein the A.O. has not recorded his own
satisfaction
Annexure- 8 Reassessment Order dated 12.09.2014 passed u/s 126
Impugned 40(1) and 42(3) of the Act. This order was passed
simply following the audit objection without
satisfaction of A.O
Annexure- 7 Pursuant to the above re-assessment order, a 125
Impugned Demand Notice dated 17.10.2014 was issued
(iv) Balashri Metals in W.P.(T) No. 6226 of 2014
Period (2007-08)
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2013)
Annexures Particulars Page
No.
Annexure- 1 Registration Certificate (Statement at Para 06 of 101
W.P.)
Annexure- 3 Original Assessment Order dated 16.03.2010 for the 108
Period 2007-08 passed under JVAT Act
Annexure- 4 Reassessment Proceeding for 2007-08 u/s 42(3) 111
Impugned initiated vide order sheet dated 30.07.2014
contained in the Entire Order Sheet wherein the A.O.
has not recorded his own satisfaction
Annexure- 5 Notice for hearing dated 30.07.2014 for 2007-08 u/s 115
Impugned 42(3) of JVAT Act with audit objection
wherein the A.O. has not recorded his own
satisfaction
Annexure- 7 Reassessment-cum-penalty Order dated 22.09.2014 122
Impugned passed u/s 42(3) and 40(1) of the JVAT Act. This
order was passed simply following the audit
objection without satisfaction of A.O
Annexure- 6 Pursuant to the above re-assessment order, a 121
Impugned Demand Notice dated 22.09.2014 was issued
(v) Hindalco Industries Limited in W.P.(T) No. 6562 of 2012
Period (2006-07)
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2012)
Annexures Particulars Page
No.
& 1/1
Annexure- 3 Original Assessment Orders dated 27.09.2009 for 88
the Period 2006-07
Annexure- 4 Entire Order Sheet initiating reassessment 91
Impugned proceeding u/s 40(1) of JVAT Act for the period
2006-07 vide order sheet dated 05.11.2011 wherein
the A.O. has not recorded his own satisfaction
Annexure- 5, 3 Composite / Combined Notices inter alia for the 93
5/1 & 5/2 period 2006-07 u/s 40(1) of JVAT Act all dated
Impugned 11.11.2011 with audit objection wherein the A.O.
has not recorded his own satisfaction
Annexure- 8 Reassessment-cum-penalty Order dated 06.06.2012 118
Impugned passed u/s 40(1) of the JVAT Act for the period
2006-07. This order was passed simply following
the audit objection without satisfaction of A.O
Annexure- 7 Pursuant to the above re-assessment order, a 121
Impugned Demand Notice dated 11.06.2012 was issued
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
(vi) M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. W.P.(T) No. 2324 of 2016
Period-2009-10
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2015)
Annexures Particulars Page
No.
Annexure- 2 Original Assessment Orders both dated 23.03.2013 100-
for the Period 2009-10 passed under the provision of
JVAT and CST
Annexure-3 Being aggrieved with aforesaid Original Assessment 111
orders, the petitioner filed a revision petition before
the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes u/e 80 of the
JVAT Act, which were remanded back by common
order dated 25.07.2013 granting the opportunity to
the petitioner to produce the required statutory forms
Annexure-4 Pursuant thereto, revised Assessment Order Passed 112-
on 09.10.2015 and on 02.06.2015 under the
provision of JVAT and CST Act respectively, reducing
the tax liability.
Annexure- 5 Notice granting opportunity of hearing u/s 42(3) of 121-
and 5/1 the JVAT Act dated 05.04.2014 for 2009-10 with 128
audit objection. (under JVAT and CST)
The A.O. has not recorded his own satisfaction
Annexure-8 Objection filed by the Petitioner on 10.06.2014 and 152-
And &
Annexure-9 165-
Annexure- Re-assessment order dated 18.01.2016 passed 172-
10 and 10/1 pursuant to Audit Objection., raising a demand of 175
Impugned Rs.6,75,70,517/- under CST Act and demand Notice
dated 18.01.2016 was issued. This order was
passed simply following the audit objection without
satisfaction of A.O
(vii) M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. W.P.(T) No. 2325 of 2016
Period-2009-10
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2015)
Annexures Particulars Page
No.
Annexure- 2 Original Assessment Orders both dated 23.03.2013 100-
for the Period 2009-10 passed under the provision of
JVAT and CST
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
Annexure-3 Being aggrieved with aforesaid Original Assessment 111
orders, the petitioner filed a revision petition before
the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes u/e 80 of the
JVAT Act, which were remanded back by common
order dated 25.07.2013 granting the opportunity to
the petitioner to produce the required statutory forms
Annexure-4 Pursuant thereto, revised Assessment Order Passed 112-
on 09.10.2015 and on 02.06.2015 under the
provision of JVAT and CST Act respectively, reducing
the tax liability.
Annexure- 5 Notice granting opportunity of hearing u/s 42(3) of 121-
and 5/1 the JVAT Act dated 05.04.2014 for 2009-10 with 128
audit objection. (under JVAT and CST)
The A.O. has not recorded his own satisfaction
Annexure-8 Objection filed by the Petitioner on 10.06.2014 and 151-
And &
Annexure-9 164-
Annexure- Re-assessment order dated 18.01.2016 passed 171-
10 and 10/1 pursuant to Audit Objection., raising a demand of 174
Impugned Rs.6,65,55,282/- under JVAT Act and demand
Notice dated 18.01.2016 was issued. This order was
passed simply following the audit objection without
satisfaction of A.O
(viii) M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. W.P.(T) No. 1955 of 2022
Period-2008-09
Relevant Annexures
Barred by Limitation (31.03.2014)
Annexures Particulars Page
No.
Annexure- 1 Original Assessment Order dated 22.03.2011 for the 63-64
Period 2008-09 passed under the provision of JVAT.
The aforesaid Assessment Order attained finality as
the same was not challenged and tax was
accordingly paid
Annexure- 2 The Petitioner was in receipt of Common Notice 65-69
granting opportunity of hearing u/s 42(3) of the JVAT
Act dated 31.07.2014 for 2008-09, 2009-10 and
2010-11 with audit objection.
Objection filed by the Petitioner
Annexure- 3 Re-assessment order dated 22.09.2014, confirming 70-71
and 3/1 the Audit Objection and thereby raising a demand of
Impugned Rs.2,67,711.75 and demand Notice dated
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
22.09.2014 was issued.
This order was passed simply following the audit
objection without satisfaction of A.O
(ix) Tata Steel Limited v. State of Jharkhand & Ors
Period 2012-2013
Barred by Limitation
Relevant Annexures
Annexures Particulars Page No.
Annexure -1 Original Assessment Order dated 31.03.2016 58
Annexure- 3 Notice under section 40(1)(b) of the JVAT Act 84
(Impugned) converted into proceeding under Section 42(3) of
JVAT Act, despite the fact that Assessing
Authority Officer himself objected to Audit
Objection.
Annexure- 11 Entire Order Sheet in respect of A.Y 2012-13. 93
The re-assessment proceeding was initiated
against the Petitioner on 10.04.2017 under
Section 40(1) of JVAT Act, subsequently on
03.04.2018, the re-assessment proceeding was
treated to have been initiated against the
Petitioner under Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act.
Although, initial notice under section 41(1) of the
JVAT Act, 2005 was issued within the Period of
Limitation, but said proceeding was void ab
initio and so assessing officer initiated
proceedings on 03.04.2018 under Section 42(3)
of the JVAT Act, 2005 which was barred by
limitation. Notice was issued for re-assessment
on 17.06.2018 which is barred by limitation.
27.06.2018 Notice for Hearing wherein proceeding for re- 118
assessment has been initiated u/s 42(3) of JVAt
Act pursuant to Audit Objection bearing IR No.
110/2016-17.
Annexure - 18 Jharkhand Gazette dated 30.09.2011 126
(Impugned) publishing Jharkhand Act 22, 2011 i.e
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
Jharkhand Value Added Tax(Amendment) Act,
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the impugned orders and also the judgment
passed by this Court in Jharkhand Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it
appears that the issue involved in this writ application is
squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
6. For brevity paragraphs 6 to 15 is extracted hereinbelow:-
"6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that
short question involved in the instant writ application is whether the proceeding
for reassessment initiated beyond the prescribed under the Act, is barred by
limitation or not, and thus, consequentially the impugned notice initiating the
impugned proceeding is void ab-initio or not?
7. For the purpose of determining the aforesaid question, it would be
appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of Section- 40 of the JVAT Act, 2005
which contains the provisions for initiation of reassessment proceeding in case
of "Turnover escaping Assessment". The said provisions read as under:-
40. Turnover escaping Assessment-(1) Where after a dealer is assessed
under Section 35 or Section 36 for any year or part thereof, and the
Prescribed Authority, upon information or otherwise has reason to
believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of the dealer in
respect of any period has
a) escaped assessment; or
b) been under assessed; or
c) been assessed at a rate lower than the rate on which it is assessable;
or
d) been wrongly allowed any deduction therefrom; or
e) been wrongly allowed any credit therein; the prescribed authority
may, serve or cause to serve a notice on the dealer and after giving the
dealer reasonable opportunity of being heard and making such
inquiries as he considers necessary, proceed to assess to the best of his
judgment, the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of such
turnover, and the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be, apply
accordingly.
(2) No order of assessment and reassessment shall be made under sub-
section(1) after the expiry of five years from the end of the year in
respect of which or part of which the tax is assessable"
8. A bare reading of the provisions of Section-40 of the JVAT Act,
2005 which was operational at the relevant point of time, would clearly Neutral
Citation 2019:JHHC:39589-DB reveal that in such cases where a dealer has
been assessed under Section 35 or 36 of the JVAT Act, 2005, if it is brought to
the Prescribed Authority that any part of the turnover of the said dealer has
escaped assessment or has been under assessed or assessed at a rate lower
than the rate on which it is assessable or have been wrongly allowed any
deduction, or has wrongly been allowed any credit, the prescribed authority
may initiate proceeding against the said dealer after serving notice on the
dealer and after giving the said dealer reasonable opportunity of being heard.
However, said provisions itself contains an embargo upon the prescribed
authority in the form of limitation and provides inter-alia, that no such
proceeding for assessment or reassessment shall be initiated after the expiry of
five years from the end of the year in respect of which or part of which the tax
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
is assessable.
9. A bare reading of the said provisions clearly reveals that the
period of limitation of 5 years have been prescribed under the Act and a plain
reading of the said provision would reveal that the period of limitation
prescribed under the Act does not demarcate between the situations where the
tax is under assessed or escaped assessment for any reason whatsoever, and
the limitation is un-extendable.
10. It is trite law that taxing statute is to be strictly construed and the
subject is not to be taxed without clear words for that purpose contained in the
taxing statute. Reference in this regard may be made to Constitutional Bench
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Commissioner of
Customs (Import), Mumbai Vrs Dilip Kumar and Company and others"
reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
vide paragraph-30, has held as under:-
30. ........" A taxing statute is to be strictly construed. The wellestablished rule
in the familiar words of Lord Wensleydale, reaffirmed by Lord Halsbury's and
Lord Simmonds, means;
"The subject is not be taxed without clear words for that purpose;
and also that every act of Parliament must be read according to the natural
construction of its words."
In a classic passage Lord Cairnds stated the principle thus:
'If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law
he must be taxed, however, great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind
to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring
the subject within the letter of the law, - the subject is free, however apparently
within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if
there be admissible in any statute, what is called an equitable construction,
certainly, such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute where you
can simply adhere to the words of the statute'.
Viscount Simon quoted with approval a passage from Rowlant, J
expressing the principle in the following words: ( Cape Brandy Case, KB P 71) '
......... in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There
is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no
presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One
can only look fairly at the language used.'
11. In view of aforesaid accepted principle of law regarding strict
interpretation of taxing statute, we are unable to accept the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the respondents that the period of limitation
prescribed under the Act for initiation of reassessment proceeding would not be
applicable in the event reassessment proceedings are sought to be initiated due
to any fraud allegedly having been committed by a dealer. If the intention of the
legislature would have been to provide for additional period of limitation, in the
circumstances where tax has been under assessed or escaped assessment by
reasons of fraud, wilful suppression and/or misrepresentation by a dealer,
said provision would have been specifically included in the JVAT Act, 2005 as
has been done in other taxing statutes like the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus,
the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are not applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the said judgments were
dealing with the statute which provided reckoning of extended period for
limitation where action was to be initiated due to reasons of fraud,
misrepresentation and/or wilful suppression by an Assessee.
12. One further reason for which we are unable to accept the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondents, is due to the
provisions contained under Rule-38 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules,
2005 ( in short "JVAT Rules, 2005) which contains provision regarding the
records to be maintained by a VAT dealer. A bare perusal of Rule-38 of the
JVAT Rules, 2005 would reveal that a VAT dealer is required to maintain true
and correct accounts of its business transactions and several books of accounts
etc, is required to be maintained by it in respect of each assessment year.
However, Rule- 38(3) of the JVAT Rules, 2005 provides inter-alia that the
records to be maintained by a dealer under the Rule is required to be retained
and made available for inspection, audit, verification etc for a period of five
years only. For the sake of ready reference, Rule-38(3) of the JVAT Rules, 2005
is quoted hereunder:-
38. Records to be maintained for VAT
........................
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
..........................
(3) All records specified in this rule shall be retained and made available
for inspections / audit / verifications for a period of five years, after the end of
the year.
13. Thus if the arguments of respondent-State is accepted that
reassessment proceeding can be initiated at any time and even beyond the
period of five years as stipulated under Section- 40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005,
Rule- 38 (3) of the JVAT Rules, 2005 would be rendered Otiose and Vat dealer
who is not required to maintain records beyond the period of five years would
be subjected to assessment and/or reassessment without having necessary
records available with it for defending the assessment and/or reassessment
proceeding. This cannot be countenanced in the eye of law.
14. One another objection has been raised by the counsel for the
respondents that the present writ application is not maintainable as the
petitioner has challenged the show cause notice and the petitioner has effective
alternative remedy before the authority who has issued notice. In our opinion,
said plea raised by the respondents is not tenable in the eye of law as the
question of limitation being a jurisdictional question, writ petition is
maintainable. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Punjab and Ors Vs.
Bhatinda District Co operative Milk Producers Union Ltd, reported in
(2007) 11 SCC 263", wherein similar show cause notices were under
challenge and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-24 of the said judgment
has held as under:-
"24. Question of Limitation being a jurisdictional question, the writ
petition was maintainable."
15. In view of cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned herein
above, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned notice of reassessment
issued vide process no. 1698 dated 24.5.2013 to the extent it relates to
assessment year 2006-07 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application as
being barred by limitation and void ab-initio. Accordingly, the writ application is
hereby allowed.
7. Having regards to the settled proposition of law as laid
down in the above referred case, we see that in W.P.(T) No.
4397 of 2014; Tata Chemicals Limited, relates to the year
2006-07, the reassessment order could have been passed
latest by 31.03.2012 but the same was passed on
17.06.2014, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
40(4) of the Act.
8. In W.P.(T) No. 4415 of 2014, since the case relates to the
year 2007-08, the reassessment order could have been
passed latest by 31.03.2013 but the same was passed on
02.06.2014, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
40(4) of the Act.
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
9. In W.P.(T) No. 486 of 2016, since the case relates to the
year 2008-09, the reassessment order could have been
passed latest by 31.03.2014 but the same was passed on
12.09.2014, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
40(4) of the Act.
10. In W.P.(T) No. 6226 of 2014, since the case relates to the
year 2007-08, the reassessment order could have been
passed latest by 31.03.2013 but the same was passed on
12.09.2014, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
40(4) of the Act.
11. In W.P.(T) No. 6562 of 2012, since the case relates to the
year 2006-07, the reassessment order could have been
passed latest by 31.03.2012 but the same was passed on
06.06.2012, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
40(4) of the Act.
12. In W.P.(T) No. 2324 of 2016, since the case relates to the
year 2009-10, the reassessment order could have been
passed latest by 31.03.2015 but the same was passed on
18.01.2016, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
40(4) of the Act.
13. In W.P.(T) No. 2325 of 2016, since the case relates to
the year 2009-10, the reassessment order could have been
passed latest by 31.03.2015 but the same was passed on
18.01.2016, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
40(4) of the Act.
14. In W.P.(T) No. 1955 of 2022, since the case relates to
the year 2009-10, the reassessment order could have been
passed latest by 31.03.2014 but the same was passed on
22.09.2014, therefore, the same is barred by limitation u/s
40(4) of the Act.
15. In W.P.(T) No. 4228 of 2018, since in the instance case
the notice itself was challenged being barred by limitation
and the same was stayed by this Court; as such this writ
application is also allowed on the same principle.
16. Accordingly, all these writ applications are allowed. The
impugned orders issued in the case of respective petitioners
with respect to different writ applications, is hereby, quashed
and set aside. The details of which are given in detail
hereinbelow: -
(i) In W.P.(T) No. 4397/2014, Entire Order Sheet for 2006-
07 wherein by order sheet dated 13.05.2014, last opportunity
was given for hearing u/s 42(3) of the Act (Annexure 5);
Notice u/s 42(3) dated 13.05.2014 issued for hearing
(Annexure 9); Reassessment order dated 17.06.2014
(Annexure 12); Demand notice dated 17.06.2014 (Annexure
11) are hereby, quashed and set aside.
(ii) In W.P.(T) No. 4415/2014, Entire Order Sheet for 2007-
08 (Annexure 5); Reassessment order dated 02.06.2014
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
(Annexure 9); Demand notice dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure 8)
are hereby, quashed and set aside.
(iii) In W.P.(T) No. 1955/2022, Reassessment order dated
22.09.2014 (Annexure 3); Demand notice dated 22.09.2014
(Annexure 3/1); Revisional Order dated 16.12.2021
(Annexure 6); Suo-motu Revision Case Order dated
02.12.2019 as contained in Memo No.124 dated 08.01.2020
(Annexure 4) are hereby, quashed and set aside.
(iv) In W.P.(T) No. 6226/2014 Reassessment Proceeding
initiated vide order dated 30.07.2014 for 2007-08 (Annexure
4); Notice u/s 42(3) dated 30.07.2014 was issued for hearing
(Annexure 5); Reassessment order dated 22.09.2014
(Annexure 7); Demand notice dated 22.09.2014 (Annexure 6)
are hereby, quashed and set aside.
(v) In W.P.(T) No. 486/2015, Entire Order Sheet for 2008-09
wherein reassessment proceeding initiated vide order sheet
dated 17.03.2012(Annexure 4); Reassessment order dated
12.09.2014 (Annexure 8); Demand notice dated 17.10.2014
(Annexure 7) are hereby, quashed and set aside.
(vi) In W.P.(T) No. 6562/2012 Entire Order Sheet for 2006-
07 wherein reassessment proceeding initiated vide order
sheet dated 05.11.2011 (Annexure 4); 3
Composite/Combined Notices inter alia for the period 2006-
07 u/s 40(1) of JVAT Act all dated 11.11.2011 (Annexure
2026:JHHC:4762-DB
5,5/1 & 5/2); Reassessment order dated 06.06.2012
(Annexure 8); Demand notice dated 11.06.2012 (Annexure 7)
are hereby, quashed and set aside.
(vii) In W.P.(T) No. 4228/2018 Notice dated 03.04.2018 for
A.Y 2012-13 (Annexure 10) wherein proceeding for
reassessment initiated vide notice dated 10.04.2017
(Annexure 3) under section 40(1)(b) of the JVAT Act has been
converted into proceeding under Section 42(3) of JVAT Act ;
Notice for hearing dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure 15) are
hereby, quashed and set aside.
(viii) In W.P.(T) No. 2325/2016 Re-assessment order dated
18.01.2016 (Annexure 10); Demand Notice dated 18.01.2016
(Annexure 10/1) are hereby, quashed and set aside.
(ix) In W.P.(T) No. 2324/2016 Re-assessment order dated
18.01.2016 (Annexure 10); Demand Notice dated 18.01.2016
(Annexure 10/1) are hereby, quashed and set aside.
17. Pending I.A.s, if any also stands disposed of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:17 /02/2026
Amardeep/
N.A.F.R
Uploaded
19.02.2026
