Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1298 (JHR)

Tata Steel Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-29

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, R.BANUMATHI

body2013
Order This writ petition is filed for restraining the respondents from enforcing the demand contained in demand notice dated 17.10.2012 and its reminder for payment dated 12.11.2013 whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay the amount of Rs. 2.56 Crores relating to the financial year 2007-08 under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 2. For the year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order dated 6.02.2010, which was duly paid by the petitioner as per original assessment order. Based on the audit objection, the petitioner was served with another notice dated 4.03.2011 informing the petitioner that there is audit objection and also raising the demand of revised assessment order calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh with Books and Account. In the order dated 12.10.2012, the petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 2.56 crores. Demand Notice dated 17.10.2012 was served upon the petitioner to pay additional amount of Rs. 2.56 crores. 3. As against the said demand, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner and the Commissioner passed order in CC(S) No. 300/13 by which the Commissioner has confirmed the demand to pay an amount of Rs. 2.56 Crores. The petitioner received the copy of the order on 13.11.2013. 4. As against the order passed by the Commissioner in revision, further revision lies before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, which is being headed by Judicial Officer. Since the post of Presiding Officer of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal is vacant, on being mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was permitted to be taken up as writ petition. 5. Challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Mittal, submitted that the Commissioner has not considered any of the submissions made by the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is not liable to pay amount as per the additional demand. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the order of this Court dated 19.3.2012 (passed in W.P.(T) No. 1078 of 2012) and also the order dated 14.03.202 (passed in W.P(T) No. 1348 of 2012) and submitted that in similar matters, the Court has passed the interim order to the effect that no coercive step will be taken against the petitioner till the application for interim relief is decided by the appellate court. 6. 6. Since the Tribunal is not functional, we are not going to the merits of the matter. Keeping in view the interest of the Revenue and also the contention of the petitioner, there shall be interim stay on the order of demand till next date of hearing. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (rupees one crore) towards the additional demand for the Assessment Year 2007-08 before the Assessing Officer i.e. Dy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh by or before 2.1.2014 and on failure to deposit the interim stay granted shall stand automatically vacated. Put up this case on 3.01.2014. Appeal allowed.