Anand Lubricating & Pneumatic Systems Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
Conclusion: Orders of assessments were a quasi-judicial order passed after hearing of assessee, followed by issuance of demand notices as per the provision of JVAT Act itself and assessee had statutory remedies against the orders of assessments whose limitation commence from the date of receipt of the demand notices and not from the date of the assessment orders
Held: Assessee was a dealer registered under the provisions of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (JVAT Act, 2005) and Central Sales Tax, Act, 2006 (CST Act, 1956). It filed application for surrender of the registration certificates before the Commercial Tax department w.e.f. March, 2015. It was regularly filing its returns to the respondent-Commercial Tax department and its regular assessment proceedings were completed. However, for the assessment years, 2009-10 and 2010-11, assessee was neither communicated the copy of the assessment orders, nor copy of the demand notices till July 2018 for both under Central Sales Tax (CST) as well as Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (JVAT). Assessee was served with four demand notices for the assessment years, 2009-10 and 2010-11 , both CST and JVAT through e-mail on 03.08.2018 wherein the date of payment had been notified as 13.08.2018, i.e., after expiry of more than four years from the alleged date of demand notices. It was argued that the aforesaid action of respondents demonstrated that the assessment proceedings including impugned the assessment orders and demand notices were antedated which had been done by manipulating the records and consequently, the assessments having been done beyond the statutory period, though antedated, were void ab initio. Admittedly, assessee was served with four demand notices for the years 2009-10( JVAT and CST) and 2010-11 ( JVAT and CST) for the first time on 03.08.2018. The demand notices as well as the assessment orders under CST as well as JVAT for both the years were under challenge in these writ petitions alleging ante-dating to save period of limitation. It was held that the orders of assessments were a quasi-judicial order passed after hearing of assessee, followed by issuance of demand notices as per the provision of JVAT Act itself and assessee had statutory remedies against the orders of assessments whose limitation commence from the date of receipt of the demand notices and not from the date of the assessment orders. In the present cases the order sheets revealed that the date on which the impugned orders of assessments were passed, assessee not only appeared through an advocate but even its liability was quantified and mentioned in the order sheets after passing the orders of assessment in separate sheets thus, the writ petition filed by assessee was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
1. Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned A.A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs: –
In W.P. (T) No. 4175 of 2018
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the assessment order allegedly dated 12.03.2014 pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 (VAT Proceeding) as contained in Annexure-3, and declaring the said assessment order being void ab-initio especially because the said assessment order has been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation of three years as prescribed under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005;
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Demand Notice bearing no. 7123 allegedly dated 12.03.2014 which has been served upon the petitioner on 3rd August, 2018, as contained in Annexure-2, directing the petitioner to make payment of disputed amount by 13th August, 2018 especially because the said demand notice has also been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax, 2005;
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to hold enquiry and fix responsibility upon the responsible officers for passing antedated order dated 12.3.2014 and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceeding against said officers in accordance with law.
In W.P. (T) No. 4178 of 2018
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the assessment order allegedly dated 16.2.2013 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 (VAT Proceeding) as contained in Annexure-4, and declaring the said assessment order being void ab-initio especially because the said assessment order has been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation of three years as prescribed under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005;
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Demand Notice bearing no. 14232 allegedly dated 16.2.2013 which has been served upon the petitioner on 3rd August, 2018, as contained in Annexure-3, directing the petitioner to make payment of disputed amount by 13th August, 2018 especially because the said demand notice has also been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax, 2005;
(iii)For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to hold enquiry and fix responsibility upon the responsible officers for passing antedated order dated 16.2.2013 and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceeding against said officers in accordance with law.
In W.P. (T) No. 4170 of 2018
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the assessment order allegedly dated 12.03.2014 pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 (CST Proceeding) as contained in Annexure-3, and declaring the said assessment order being void ab-initio especially because the said assessment order has been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation of three years as prescribed under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005;
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Demand Notice bearing no. 7124 allegedly dated 12.03.2014 which has been served upon the petitioner on 3rd August, 2018, as contained in Annexure-2, directing the petitioner to make payment of disputed amount by 13th August, 2018 especially because the said demand notice has also been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax, 2005;
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to hold enquiry and fix responsibility upon the responsible officers for passing antedated order dated 12.3.2014 and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceeding against said officers in accordance with law.
In W.P. (T) No. 4173 of 2018
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/setting aside the assessment order allegedly dated 16.2.2013 pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 (CST Proceeding) as contained in Annexure-4, and declaring the said assessment order being void ab-initio especially because the said assessment order has been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation of three years as prescribed under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005;
(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the Demand Notice bearing no. 14233 allegedly dated 16.2.2013 which has been served upon the petitioner on 3rd August, 2018, as contained in Annexure-3, directing the petitioner to make payment of disputed amount by 13th August, 2018 especially because the said demand notice has also been passed antedated and beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax, 2005;
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/direction(s), including Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to hold enquiry and fix responsibility upon the responsible officers for passing antedated order dated 16.2.2013 and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceeding against said officers in accordance with law.
4. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
i. A common written submission has also been filed in these cases and it has been submitted that the facts of all the writ petitions are almost identical except with regards to certain list of dates.
ii. It has been submitted that the brief facts of W.P.(T) No. 4170 of 2018 relating to 2010-11, CST Proceeding are as under: –
