TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Writ Petition Against JVAT Re-Assessment Order Is Maintainable; Limitation Period Governed by Sections 40(1) and 40(4)</h1> <h3>M/s. Rungta Mines Limited, Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa</h3> M/s. Rungta Mines Limited, Versus The State of Jharkhand, The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jamshedpur, Deputy Commissioner of ... Issues Involved:1. Whether Writ Petition is maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedyRs.2. Whether Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act merely enumerates additional circumstances/grounds on which an Assessee can be subjected to re-assessment, and, re-assessment proceeding is to be guided by substantive provision of re-assessment contained under Section 40 of the JVAT ActRs.3. Whether if Section 42(3) is held as not prescribing any period of limitation for carrying out re-assessment proceedings, said re-assessment proceeding is required to be carried out within the reasonable time and what should be the reasonable time under the scheme of the JVAT ActRs.4. Whether suo-motu extension orders extending the period of limitation passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court would apply to original adjudication proceedingsRs.Summary:Issue No. (i): Maintainability of Writ PetitionThe court held that the writ petition is maintainable as it raises the jurisdictional question of limitation, which is a fundamental issue. Furthermore, it would be futile to direct the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal or revision because the highest statutory authority, the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, has already ruled that Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act does not prescribe any period of limitation.Issue Nos. (ii) and (iii): Interpretation of Section 42(3)The court determined that Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act should be read in conjunction with Section 40(4), which prescribes a five-year limitation period for re-assessment proceedings. The court noted that Section 42(3) provides additional grounds for re-assessment but does not extend the limitation period beyond what is prescribed in Section 40(4). The court emphasized that the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 42(3) indicates that the legislature did not intend to extend the limitation period for re-assessment based on audit objections.Issue No. (iv): Applicability of Suo-Motu Extension OrdersThe court held that the suo-motu extension orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which extended the period of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, do not apply to original adjudication proceedings. The court relied on a Circular issued by the CBIC and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, which clarified that the extension orders apply only to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings and not to original adjudication proceedings.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the re-assessment orders dated 08.03.2022, as they were passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The court emphasized that re-assessment proceedings must be completed within the statutory period of five years as stipulated under Section 40(4) of the JVAT Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
