JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Short question involved in the instant writ application is “Whether impugned notice initiating reassessment proceeding against the petitioner-Company for the Assessment Year 2006-07 is barred by limitation, and thus, void ab-initio”? 2. The brief facts of the case as would be evident from the writ application is that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as “JVAT Act, 2005”], and is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing of sponge Iron and M.S. Billets. During the relevant period under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2006-07, the petitioner submitted all its return under the provisions of the JVAT Act, 2005 and duly discharged its admitted tax liability to the Commercial Taxes Department and even subsequently Assessment order was passed against the petitioner-Company under Section 35(5)(b) of the JVAT Act, 2005 vide Assessment Order dated 05.02.2009. 3. Subsequent to passing of the Assessment Order and pursuant to a complaint made by one Shri Udai Shankar Ojha, alleging inter-alia that the petitioner concealed certain purchase of Iron Ore, an Inspection was held in the premises of the petitioner on 23.5.2013. Subsequent to said inspection, a notice for reassessment under Section 40 of the JVAT Act, 2005 has been issued to the petitioner vide process No. 1698 dated 24.5.2013 which is impugned in the instant writ application. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that notice for reassessment as contained in process No. 1698 dated 24.5.2013 to the extent in the said notice proceeding for reassessment is sought to be initiated against the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2006-07 under the provision of Section-40 of the JVAT Act, 2005, is barred by limitation and is void ab-initio. It has been submitted that under the provision of Section-40 of the JVAT Act, 2005 (as it stood then) provisions have been contained for initiating reassessment proceeding in respect of escape assessment or under assessment of taxes. It has been contended that under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005 as it then stood, no order of reassessment could have been made after the expiry of five years from the end of the year in respect of which or part of which the tax is assessable. It has been contended that under Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005 as it then stood, no order of reassessment could have been made after the expiry of five years from the end of the year in respect of which or part of which the tax is assessable. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the dispute relates to the Assessment Year 2006-07 and the period of five years as stipulated under Section-40(2) of the JVAT Act would commence from 31.3.2007 and would end by 31.03.2012 and thus, it has been contended that issuance of notice beyond the period prescribed for initiating reassessment proceeding is time barred and void ab-initio. 5. Per contra, Mr. Atanu Banjerjee, counsel appearing for respondent-State of Jharkhand has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and has stated that the writ petitioner has challenged the show cause notice which is not maintainable and the petitioner should participate in the reassessment proceeding and raise all questions before the Assessing Authority including the question of limitation. It has been further contended that although Section-40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005 prescribed period of limitation of five years for initiation of reassessment proceeding, but the said period of limitation would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner, especially when it has been brought to the notice of respondent-authorities that the petitioner has concealed its purchase turnover. In substance, it has been contended that the petitioner fraudulently concealed its purchase turnover and since there is a fraud, period of limitation cannot stand in the way of assessing authority in passing reassessment order. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the respondents on the following decisions:- (i) Commissioner of Customs(Preventive) Vrs. Aafloat Textile(I) (P) Ltd, (2009) 11 SCC 18 (ii) Ashok Leyland Ltd Vrs State of Tamilnadu, (2004) 3 SCC 1 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. 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 there from; 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. (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 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 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 betwen 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. 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 well-established 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 ........................ .......................... (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. For the sake of ready reference, Rule-38(3) of the JVAT Rules, 2005 is quoted hereunder:- 38. Records to be maintained for VAT ........................ .......................... (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 H.C. Mishra, J:- I agree.