TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. Mr. Kumar Sundaram, J.C. to A.A.G. ORDER Per D. N. Patel, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred mainly challenging the orders which are annexed at Annexures 10 and 11 to the memo of this writ petition. Annexure 10 is an order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Review Case No. 64 of 2001, which is re numbered as Review Case No. 771 of 2004, dated 19th February, 2013 and Annexure 11 is demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 on the basis of the reassessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur dated 18th December, 1999. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the assessment year 1996 97, two orders were passed by the assessing officer being Commercial Taxes Officer for Bihar Sales Tax (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as BST ) and for Central Sales Tax (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as CST ). This assessment order is dated 6th January, 1999, against which, revision applications being Revision Case Nos. 64 and 65 of 1999 2000 were preferred by the petitioner assessee under Section 46(4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). These two appeals were against the order of reassessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 18th December, 1999. At length, hearing was going before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and detailed speaking orders have been passed on 1st August, 2002 in both Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999 2000 for BST as well as CST. These orders are at Annexures 7 and 7/1 to the memo of this writ petition. In this order, all types of Forms viz. Form C, Form F and Form H were allowed to be presented by the assessee before the Commercial Taxes Officer and the matters were remanded. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and submitted that the period of limitation for reassessment after the remand order is passed by the appellate authority is two years. Nothing has been done not only within two years and even thereafter for several years and now Revision Case No. 64 of 2001, which was preferred in the erstwhile State of Bihar was re numbered as Review Case No. 771 of 2004 after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, was dismissed on 19th February, 2013 by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the respondent State that Revision Case Nos. 64 and 66 of 2001 were disposed of vide order dated 21st May, 2002 (Annexure 6) because Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999 2000 were pending, but, the case left out was Review Case No. 771 of 2004 against the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 23rd June, 1999 and this review case was dismissed on 19th February, 2013 (Annexure 10) by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, whereby, argument about presentation of Form H, which is meant for penultimate transaction of the export or before export, was not allowed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and ultimately demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 (Annexure 11) was issued, thereby, no wrong has been committed by the respondent State and, hence, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS: 10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, we hereby quash and set aside the order at Annexure 10 as well as order/notice at Annexure 11 dated 19 th February, 2013 and 8 th March, 2013 respectively mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) For the assessment year 1996 97, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2002. These two order are at Annexures 7 and 7/1. Detailed speaking orders have been passed, for which, the assessee petitioner was allowed to present all types of Forms viz. Form C, Form F and Form H meant for different purposes especially for CST and the matter was remanded. (viii) Nothing has happened thereafter, neither during the period of limitation nor several years thereafter. The period of limitation has been referred in Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. For the ready reference, Section 24 reads as under: 24. Period of limitation for completion of assessment proceedings. Except a proceeding under sub section (5) of section 17, section 18 and sub section (1) of section 19 no proceedings for assessment of the tax payable by a dealer under this part in respect of any period shall be initiated and completed except before the expiry of four years from the expiry of such period: Provided that a proceeding for re assessment in pursuance of or as a result of an order on appeal, revision and reference or review shall be initiated and completed before the expiry of two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Thus, initially the assessment was made on 6th January, 1999 in Revision Case Nos. 64 and 65 of 1999 2000 preferred by the assessee. The matter was remanded against the reassessment order passed on 18th December, 1999 (Annexure 2) and in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999 2000, the matter was remanded and Form C, Form F and Form H were allowed to be presented by the assessee and, hence, reassessment order could have been passed by the respondents, but, no reassessment order has ever been passed finalizing the liability of the petitioner. (c) Looking to Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the order of reassessment can be passed within a period of two years from the date of communication of the order passed in the appeal/ revision/reference/review, but, no such reassessment order has been passed after 1st August, 2002 i.e. after the appellate order is passed. (xi) The demand notice dated 8th March, 2013 which is at Annexure 11 has been issued ignoring (a) The appellate order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dated 1st August, 2002 in Appeal Nos. 244 and 27 of 1999 2000 (Annexures 7 and 7/1). (b) Also ignoring the fact that no reass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in January 1999. Memo No. 204 dated 6 8 2003, as referred to by the counsel for the State is the second time communication, which was only a reminder. Thus, the appellate order having been communicated to the assessing authority vide Memo No. 2177 dated 5 11 1998 for the purposes of limitation the period will start from 5 11 1998 and will be complete on 5 11 2000 i.e. two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority. We, accordingly, hold that the assessment order made after remand on 27 11 2004 and the consequential demand raised in pursuance of such order of reassessment, all dated 29 11 2004 are time barred under Section 24 of the Bihar Finance Act. (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision and looking to the fact of the present case, the appellate order is dated 1 st August, 2002 and thus reassessment proceedings ought to have been commenced and completed before expiry of the period of two years from the date of communication of the appellate order. After several years i.e. more than period of one decade, no reassessment order has ever been passed and directly demand notice dated 8 th March, 2013 has been issued which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
