Case Law Details
Mishri Lal Jain Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
Jharkhand High Court held that it is mandatory to record reasons for initiation of proceedings under Section 35(7) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (JVAT Act). Non-recording of the same makes the proceedings untenable in law.
Facts- The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal, whereby the revision petition and review petition of the petitioner have been rejected and the determination of sale price of Iron Ore sold by the petitioner on the basis of average rate of neighbouring mines in exercise of the powers under Section 35(7) read with Section 30(4) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (JVAT Act) has been upheld.
The petitioner is engaged in the business of mining and trading of iron ore, and Iron ore extracted from mines is known as “Run of Mines (ROM)” which requires further processing and screening. Petitioner’s premise does not have processing and screening facility and thus, only ROM was being sold by the petitioner.
The Assessment proceeding of the petitioner was completed wherein, in alleged exercise of power u/s 35(7) r/w Section 30(4) of the JVAT Act, tax and interest has been imposed upon the petitioner on the alleged ground that petitioner has concealed its Gross Turn Over (for short GTO). The assessing officer despite taking actual figure of sale price, has taken the value of goods sold on the basis of average sale price of nearby mines i.e., M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
