9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e No. RN 30 of 2019; wherein the learned Tribunal has allowed the revision applications filed by Respondent No. 1-M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd., and in consequence thereof, has quashed and set aside the orders both dated 25.04.2019 passed in C.C (S) Case No. 301(A) of 2019 and C.C.(S) Case No. 301 of 2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The brief facts of both the cases as detailed in both the writ applications are identical to each other and learned State Counsel, during arguments, referred to the facts of W.P.(T) No. 3246 of 2020; thus, the said case is treated as lead case and the facts thereof are being noted herein-below in brief. 5. Respondent No. 1- M/s Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. is primarily engaged in the business of carrying out works contract in the State of Jharkhand and other States and is duly registered under the provisions of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to be referred as 'JVAT Act, 2005'). 6. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, an assessment order dated 04.01.2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Circle, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated under Rule 54 of JVAT Rules. Accordingly, D.C.C.T., West Circle, Ranchi applied for sanction before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi for initiation of review proceedings, which was duly accorded by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide its common order contained in Memo No. 66 dated 07.01.2019, wherein permission was granted to D.C.C.T. i.e. original Adjudicating Authority to initiate review of the original assessment orders. 12. After obtaining due sanction from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the D.C.C.T., West Circle, Ranchi initiated review proceedings and issued notices to Respondent No. 1 attaching the grounds on which review proceedings were initiated for review of the original assessment orders of both the financial years. 13. Respondent-assessee appeared before the D.C.C.T., West Circle, Ranchi i.e. the Adjudicating Authority and filed its detailed reply questioning the very initiation of the review proceedings. 14. The Adjudicating Authority, pursuant to reply filed by Respondent-assessee, after verification of the records including the issues on which review proceedings were initiated, came to a conclusion that in view of limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sanction for initiation of review proceedings on the same set of grounds and, thus, its delegatee i.e. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, on the same set of grounds, cannot entertain a suo motu revision petition, which is barred by principles of 'nemo judex causa sua' i.e., 'no man shall be a Judge of his own cause'. (iv) It was further contended in the Interlocutory application that if the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and/or its delegatee i.e. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes hear the revision application, the same would amount to a legal bias, as the said authority itself earlier granted permission for review to the Adjudicating Authority on the same set of grounds on which the order is sought to be revised in suo motu revision application. 18. On 25.03.2019, Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, despite such specific objections being raised regarding the very maintainability of revision application, only verbally directed the D.C.C.T., West Circle, Ranchi to communicate the order passed in review proceedings to Respondent No. 1 and also to supply copy of the documents and/or the application for revision, which was submitted in the form of lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Circle, Ranchi preferred the present writ applications being W.P.(T) No. 3229 of 2020 and W.P.(T) No. 3246 of 2020, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned Govt. Advocate-III, appearing for the State of Jharkhand has assailed the orders passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Jharkhand by contending, inter alia, that orders passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal are without due application of mind and without considering statutory provisions under the JVAT Act, 2005. 26. It has been contended that Petitioner-D.C.C.T., West Circle, Ranchi, initially initiated review proceedings under Section 81 of the JVAT Act against the original assessment orders, but rightly vide order dated 13.03.2019, dropped the said review proceedings as the scope of review jurisdiction was only limited to clerical correction or error appearing in the case records, whereas, the documents on record which were utilized for passing assessment orders, required re-consideration of various issues, and, it is for the said reason that D.C.C.T. preferred revision application before Additional Commissioner of Comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasoned and speaking orders after due examination of the relevant records of the case and statutory provisions as contained under the JVAT Act and Rules; and the same are not liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review. 30. It has been submitted that this Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, would not sit in appeal against the order of Commercial Taxes Tribunal and only if the order, on bare reading of it, is found to be perverse, or not in accordance with law, this Hon'ble Court would exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with the said order. Merely because two views are possible and Commercial Taxes Tribunal has adopted one view, is not a ground for interfering with the orders passed by Commercial Taxes Tribunal. 31. It has been further contended that Petitioner-D.C.C.T., West Circle, Ranchi has indulged itself in 'Forum shopping' in as much as, earlier, pursuant to direction given by J.C.C.T. (Administration) vide letter no. 944 dated 12.12.2018, D.C.C.T. initiated review proceedings under Section 81 of the JVAT Act, 2005 read with Rule 54(3) of the JVAT Rules, 2006. It has been submitted that in terms of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that not only that the revision application was filed in a casual manner, but said revision application was dealt with by Additional Commissioner in undue haste and without following any procedure known to law. 34. It has been further submitted that Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in its order dated 25.04.2019, wherein it has set aside the original assessment orders, has recorded that it has perused the records of assessment proceedings and, on being satisfied, it is of the opinion that assessment orders are prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It has been specifically contended that no records, whatsoever, was available with Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, and, without any records either called for and/or produced by D.C.C.T., West Circle, it has been wrongly recorded in the order that records have been perused. Reference has been invited to the finding of fact recorded by Commercial Taxes Tribunal in Paras 26, 27, 28 and 31 of the impugned Judgment, wherein, Commercial Taxes Tribunal has specifically recorded that Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand committed grave error by mentioning in its order that it has perused the records of revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Commercial Taxes Tribunal. 37. It has been further contended that review proceedings and/or revision proceedings, which were initiated by Petitioner-D.C.C.T. were merely on the dictate of the superior authority-J.C.C.T. (Administration), when refund applications of Respondent No. 1 were being considered; and, initiation of said proceedings on the external dictate was itself void ab initio and not maintainable in the eye of law. By referring to Para 44 of the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Rungta Mines Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1188 : (2023) 118 GSTR 87, it has been contended that assessment orders create a valid statutory right in favour of Respondent No. 1, especially when the assessment orders were followed by excess Demand Notices conferring refund upon Respondent No. 1 and initiation of revision proceedings is to be strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions of law, and, it has been rightly held by Commercial Taxes Tribunal that the very initiation of revision proceedings by Writ Petitioner-D.C.C.T., West Circle, Ranchi before Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not maintainable and, accordingly, no int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Refund and Provisional Refund.-(1) For the purposes of Section 52 and 53, the following shall be the prescribed authority:-- (a) xxx xxx xxx (d) The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), if the amount to be refunded exceeds, Rs. 1,00,000/-." (2) (a) The claim for refund under Section 52 of the Act, shall be made by a VAT dealer in Form JVAT 206, within ninety days from the date of receipt of excess demand notice. Provided the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration of the concerned division, on application, may condone the delay for filing the claim of refund." 41. Further, Rule 19(6) prescribes that refund shall be made within 60 days after filing of refund application. However, in the present case, after a lapse of more than 12 months from the date of refund application by the assessee, although favourable recommendations were made by the Writ Petitioner-D.C.C.T. for granting refund statutorily due to the assesse, the prescribed refunding authority i.e. J.C.C.T. (Administration) (Respondent No. 4), without citing any reason, vide its letter no. 944 dated 12.12.2018, directed for review of the assessment orders under Section 81 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review beyond the period of one year or by the successor in interest of the officer who has passed the original order, shall not be initiated with the previous sanction of the Commissioner or the authority specially authorized by him in this behalf. 44. It is, subsequent to the direction issued by J.C.C.T. (Administration) vide Letter No. 944 dated 12.12.2018, D.C.C.T. filed application seeking permission from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for review of the assessment orders for the periods 2013-14 and 2014-15 under Section 81 of JVAT Act. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, vide its common order contained in Letter No. 66 dated 07.01.2019 (Annexure R-5) granted permission for initiation of review proceedings and further directed that review proceedings be completed within one month after granting due opportunity of hearing to the assesse. 45. It is pursuant thereto that review proceedings were initiated by Writ Petitioner-D.C.C.T. vide Notice dated 08.01.2019 for both the aforesaid years and, in the said Notice, Respondent-assessee was directed to explain as to why certain deductions towards non-taxable charges/expenses in terms of Section 9(4)(c) of JVAT Act be not ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.C.T. for initiation of suo motu revision proceeding, the Commissioner, on its own motion, could have treated the said letter as suo-motu revision proceeding and proceeded to examine the legality and propriety of any order which, in its opinion, was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 51. However, the question which arises for consideration in the present set of writ applications is 'whether the Commissioner and/or Additional Commissioner could have initiated suo motu revision proceeding on the same set of grounds on which, earlier, the said authority itself granted sanction for initiation of review proceedings by the adjudicating authority'. As already mentioned above, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes granted sanction vide order dated 07.01.2019 to the adjudicating authority to initiate review proceedings against original assessment orders. The adjudicating authority initiated review proceedings against original assessment orders and after initiating review proceedings, on examination of the detailed documents, etc., itself held that the case is not reviewable as there is no error apparent from the records of the case. Under said circumstances, the question, thus, aris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand has passed the Revisional Order without even summoning for Lower Court Records and copies of lower court records were not produced before the Revisional Court at the time of hearing of the Revision Application. Even copy of the assessment order was not annexed along with the Revision Application and the said assessment order was only brought on record by the petitioner at the stage of filing of reply before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand. 27. It has also been asserted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner at Para 42 that one of primary contention of the respondent no. 4 was that certain claim for deduction from the taxable turnover of the petitioner was allowed without there being any adequate documents on record in that regard in the assessment order. In view of said contention raised by Respondent no. 4 it was absolutely necessary for the learned Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand to summon Lower Court records to further verify the said facts and also to give opportunity to the petitioner in that regard. However, no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner in that regard nor the lower ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T., West Circle, Ranchi for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 19.03.2019 Common Notice bearing no. 1126 dated 19.03.2019 was issued by the A.C.C.T. fixing date of hearing of Revision application on 25.03.2019 without even furnishing copy of the revision application to Respondent No. 1. 25.03.2019 Respondent No. 1 appeared and filed application requesting for copy of revision application along with relied upon documents and prayed for 30 days' time for filing its reply. 25.03.2019 Respondent No. 1 further filed interlocutory application raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of revision application. Despite time being sought for 30 days for filing reply to the revision application, only 6 days' time was given and next date was fixed on 01.04.2019. 01.04.2019 On 01.04.2019, Respondent No. 1 submitted its detailed reply and further sought time for detailed arguments in the matter. However, on the said date itself, arguments were concluded and Judgment was reserved. 58. From the above dates itself, it would be evident that Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has acted in undue haste in disposing of the revision applications. It is trite law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
