Reassessment orders voided for lack of jurisdiction; writ petitions deemed maintainable.

The court held that the reassessment orders were void and without jurisdiction as they were issued without the prerequisite initial assessment orders. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed, and the writ petitions were deemed maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment orders under Section 22 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005.
2. Maintainability of writ petitions in the presence of an alternative remedy under Section 48 of the Act of 2005.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to reassess tax without an initial assessment order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reassessment Orders:
The primary issue revolves around the reassessment orders passed for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The petitioner challenged the reassessment orders dated 30.8.2017 and 28.8.2017, claiming they were issued without a preceding assessment order, which is a prerequisite under Section 22 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax, 2005 (the Act of 2005). The court emphasized that the language of Section 22 (1) is plain and unambiguous, requiring an initial assessment order before any reassessment can be conducted. The court relied on previous judgments, including WP (T) No.77/2017, which interpreted the word "order" to mean a formal expression of a decision, not merely an acknowledgment of return submission. Consequently, the absence of an initial assessment order rendered the reassessment orders void and without jurisdiction.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 48 of the Act of 2005. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which outlined exceptions where a writ petition is maintainable despite an alternative remedy. These exceptions include violations of fundamental rights, breaches of natural justice, and actions taken without jurisdiction. Given that the reassessment orders were issued without jurisdiction (no initial assessment order), the court held that the writ petitions were maintainable.

3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner:
The court scrutinized the jurisdictional authority of the Commissioner to reassess tax under Section 22 (1) of the Act of 2005. The statute stipulates that reassessment can only occur if an initial assessment order exists. The court found that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities were without jurisdiction, as no initial assessment orders were present. The court cited the decision in M/s Tata Teleservices Limited vs. State of CG & ors, which underscored that the jurisdictional fact and condition precedent for invoking reassessment under Section 22 (1) is the existence of an initial assessment order. The absence of such an order rendered the reassessment proceedings and subsequent orders void.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the reassessment orders issued by the respondent authorities were without jurisdiction due to the absence of initial assessment orders. Consequently, the reassessment orders dated 30.8.2017 and 28.8.2017 were quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were declared void.

---