Time-barred reassessment is void and writ relief remains available despite an alternative remedy.

A reassessment initiated on an audit objection was held to be barred by the five-year statutory limitation under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, because the reassessment order was passed after the permitted period had expired. The order was therefore void and without jurisdiction, and the audit-objection route did not displace the limitation bar. The court also held that an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction; the time-bar and lack of effective prior service of the audit objection justified writ interference. The reassessment order and consequential demand notice were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment order passed pursuant to an audit objection was barred by limitation under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act and therefore without jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the existence of an appealable remedy barred the writ petition when the impugned order was alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment order passed pursuant to an audit objection was barred by limitation under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act and therefore without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The reassessment was initiated under the audit-objection route, but the statutory limitation for assessment and reassessment remained governed by the five-year period prescribed for completion of assessment proceedings. For the relevant assessment year, that period had expired before the impugned reassessment order was passed. The order was therefore beyond the permissible time limit. An order passed after expiry of limitation is void and jurisdictionally defective, and the fact that the reassessment arose from an audit objection did not displace the limitation bar.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was barred by limitation and was void for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an appealable remedy barred the writ petition when the impugned order was alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar where the impugned order is claimed to be wholly without jurisdiction. Since the reassessment order was found to be time-barred and jurisdictionally invalid, the writ court could entertain the challenge notwithstanding the statutory appellate remedy. The absence of effective prior service of the audit objection also supported interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment order and consequential demand notice were set aside, and the challenge succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment made beyond the statutory period of limitation is void and without jurisdiction, and such a jurisdictional defect can be corrected in writ proceedings notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy.

---