Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 107 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPower of review - error apparent on the face of record or not - Extraction of coal primarily for captive consumption in its Industrial Unit situated at Jamshedpur - transfer of goods for captive consumption and not for sale - demand of additional tax liability - HELD THAT:- It transpires that Petitioner-Tata Steel Ltd. is having its industrial unit at Jamshedpur wherein it is engaged in manufacturing of Iron and Steel. It has its colliery in the District of Dhanbad known as ‘Jamadova Colliery’ and from the said colliery, coal is being extracted and stock transferred to its unit at Jamshedpur in the District of East Singhbhum for captive consumption, which is ‘intra-state stock transfer’. Original assessment proceedings of the petitioner were completed and its gross turnover was accepted and no dispute was raised with respect to intra-state stock transfer of goods. A bare perusal of Section 21(1A) of the Bihar Finance Act would reveal that if any dealer claims that he is not liable to pay any tax on the part of his turnover by reason of transfer of such goods to any other dealer or agent or principal ‘for sale’ the burden of proving this claim shall be on the dealer and the dealer would furnish before the prescribed authority a declaration in the form and in the manner prescribed. Under the Rules, the declaration prescribed is Form IX-D - In the instant case, admittedly, the dealer-Tata Steel Ltd. stock transferred its goods to its Jamshedpur Unit for ‘captive consumption’ and not for ‘sale’ and, thus, on a bare reading of Section 21(1A), it would be evident that there was no requirement of furnishing of statutory Form IX-D. A perusal of the review order would demonstrate that the review order has been passed not for correcting any mistake or error apparent on the face of record, but review order has been passed to change alleged erroneous decision which is not permissible in the eye of law. Reference in this regard may be made to numerous decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been clearly held that power of review is limited to correcting ‘mistake/error apparent on the face of record’ and not to change an ‘erroneous decision’ - reliance can be placed in the case of S. Madhusudan Reddy v. V.Narayan Reddy, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1034 [2022 (8) TMI 1337 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus, the very initiation of the review proceedings pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 04.01.2011 was void ab initio, as neither any satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Authority nor any reason was assigned for initiation of review proceedings - It is a settled law that vague show cause notice lacking details amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and in that view of the matter, we are inclined to entertain the present writ applications. Petition disposed off.
|