Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1324 (JHR)

Tata Steel Limited v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-01

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) Hazaribagh in Appeal Case No. HZ/JVATA-19/14-15 dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure-7), in appeal preferred by this petitioner under section 79 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, wherein the order of regular assessment dated 11th November, 2014 for the assessment year 2011-2012 was under challenge. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that for the assessment year 2011-2012, regular assessment order was passed on 11th November, 2014 under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act. Thereafter, demand notice was issued on 19th November, 2014. Certified copy was applied on 20th November, 2014, which was ready and supplied on 30th December, 2014 and within a period of 30 days, the appeal is to be preferred. The appeal was preferred on 28th January, 2015 being Appeal Case No. HZ/JVAT-A-19/14-15, challenging the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 11th November, 2014. 3. It further appears from the facts of the case that Garnishee order was issued on 29th January, 2015, attaching the bank account of this petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order, because the same is passed during the pendency of the appeal, immediately an application was moved being Revision Application No. 79 of 2015 before Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 2nd February, 2015. 4. In this Revision Application No. 79 of 2015, stay was granted by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 2nd February, 2015 (Annexure-5) 5. It further appears from the facts of the case that appeal preferred by this petitioner under section 79 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act was admitted on 10th March, 2015. 6. In the pending appeal, Assessing Officer had preferred an application that revision application is also pending before the Commissioner. In fact, this is an error committed by the Assessing Officer, because, both the proceeding are absolutely different. Appeal was preferred challenging the order passed in regular assessment, dated 11th November, 2014, whereas, Revision Application No. 79 of 2015 was preferred against the Garnishee order issued on 29th January, 2015. Moreover, both the proceedings were before the different authorities. 7. In fact, this is an error committed by the Assessing Officer, because, both the proceeding are absolutely different. Appeal was preferred challenging the order passed in regular assessment, dated 11th November, 2014, whereas, Revision Application No. 79 of 2015 was preferred against the Garnishee order issued on 29th January, 2015. Moreover, both the proceedings were before the different authorities. 7. It further appears from the facts of the case that Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) Hazaribagh has passed order on 16th May, 2016 upon the application preferred by the Assessing Officer and appeal was adjourned sine die. 8. It further appears from the facts of the case that on 30th May, 2017, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) started hearing of the appeal and as nothing was pointed out by the Assessing Officer about the Revision Application No. 79 of 2015, the appeal was dismissed. This is an error, apparent on the face of the record, mainly for the reasons that; (a) Revision Application and the Appeal are absolutely different proceedings; (b) Challenge in both the aforesaid proceedings are also different; (c) It was the duty of the Assessing Officer to point out what has happened in the Revision Application No. 79 of 2015; (d) The Revision Application No. 79 of 2015 was heard and the judgment was reserved by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 9. The aforesaid aspects of the matters have not been properly appreciated by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) Hazaribagh We, therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) Hazaribagh in Appeal Case No. HZ/JVAT-A-19/14-15 dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure-7 to the memo of this writ petition) and the appeal preferred by this petitioner under section 79 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, being Appeal Case No. HZ/JVAT-A-19/14-15 is restored to its original file with same number and we, therefore, also direct the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Hazaribagh to decide the appeal on its own merit and on the basis of the evidences on record and in accordance with law. We also direct the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to decide the Revision Application No. 79 of 2015, because, the judgment was reserved since long. If the judgment is already pronounced, nothing further is required to be done, except, giving the copy of the said order to this petitioner. 10. We also direct the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to decide the Revision Application No. 79 of 2015, because, the judgment was reserved since long. If the judgment is already pronounced, nothing further is required to be done, except, giving the copy of the said order to this petitioner. 10. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. Petition allowed.