TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred to as "the Act of 2005"). The facts in brief leading to the issuance of the aforesaid impugned order dated August 13, 2011 and the demand notice of the same date are as follows: The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacturing of iron and steel products at its integrated steel plant at Jamshedpur in the State of Jharkhand. It has its coal mines at Jamadoba and Bhelatand within the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner is separately registered in Jharia Circle, Dhanbad. for its activities in relation to Jamadoba and Bhelatand colliery having Registration No. 20671800791 under the Act of 2005. The assessment proceeding under the Act of 2005 for the financial year 2007-08 was concluded by the assessing officer by passing an order contained in annexure 3 by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jharia Circle, Dhanbad, dated February 19, 2010 under section 35 of the Act of 2005. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, preferred a suo motu revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being Revision Case No. CC(S)86 of 2010. By order dated March 25, 2010, the Commissioner of Commercial Tax passed an interim order staying the recove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeared and filed their counter-affidavit, inter alia, supporting the impugned order and the notice of demand contesting the claim made on the part of the petitioner. The respondents have also stated that reasonable and sufficient opportunity was accorded to the petitioner by service of notice under memo No. 365 dated July 16, 2011 along with which audit objection was, also annexed. The petitioner appeared and filed a detailed reply, which was not found convincing by respondent No. 4 and accordingly, the impugned order was issued. The respondents have further justified the imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 37(6) on the ground that on a fair reading of the audit objection and cross verification of the original assessment order, original annual returns filed, subsequent revised returns filed and the VAT added report with the figures of stock transferred, the same were neither depicted in its returns nor covered by the statutory form JVAT 506 at the time of original assessment or at a later stage, when it was show caused by respondent No. 4. The assessing officer had no other option, in view of the discrepancy pointed out in audit objection and in absence of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in support thereof; or (d) the prescribed authority has reasons to believe that detailed scrutiny of the case is necessary. The prescribed authority may, notwithstanding the fact that the dealer may have already been assessed under section 35 or 36, serve on such dealer, in the prescribed manner, a notice requiring him to appear on a date and place specified therein, which may be business premises or at a place specified in the notice, to either attend and produce or cause to be produced the books of account and all evidence on which the dealer relies in support of his returns including tax invoice, if any, or to produce such evidence as specified in the notice. (2) The dealer shall provide full cooperation and assistance to the prescribed authority, to conduct the proceedings under this section at his business premises. (3) If proceeding under this section are to be conducted at the business premises of the dealer, giving him a notice to be present on prescribed date and time at his business premises and it is found that the dealer or his authorized representative is not availa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o present with the relevant books of account and other evidences to explain its stand on the ground on which the exercise for audit assessment is being made under the conditions enumerated in the provisions of section 37(1)(a), (b), (c), (d). The assessing officer after consideration of the reply and the evidence produced in course of proceeding or collected by him and on being satisfied that: "(a) a registered dealer has failed to furnish any return under subsection (1) of section 29 in respect of any period; or (b) a registered dealer is selected for audit assessment by the prescribed authority on the basis of any criteria or on random basis; or (c) the prescribed authority is not satisfied with the correctness of any return filed under section 29; or bona fides of any claim of exemption, deduction, concession, input-tax credit or genuineness of any declaration, evidence furnished by a registered dealer in support thereof; or (d) the prescribed authority has reasons to believe that detailed scrutiny of the case is necessary;" Shall assess to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax due from such d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner has drawn our attention to section 59 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 relating to notice of hearing under different sections but the relevant form JVAT 302 annexed to the writ petition does not include thereunder the contemplated notice under section 37(6) as has been submitted on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in the case of Usha Saks (Pvt). Limited v. State of Bihar reported in [1985] 58 STC 217 (Patna) and in the case of Bihar Plastic Industries Limited v. State of Bihar reported in [2000] 117 STC 346 (Patna) in relation to the question relating to issuance of proper notice. The judgment of Usha Sales (Pvt). Limited [1985] 58 STC 217 (Patna) has also been referred to in the subsequent case in Bihar Plastic Industries Limited [2000] 117 STC 346 (Patna). The matter related to escaped assessment in the case of Usha Sales (Pvt). Limited [1985] 58 STC 217 (Patna), whereas in the instant case, the petitioner was served with copy of the audit objection along with notice dated July 16, 2011, asking it to appear explaining its stand with necessary documents and books of account unlike in the case of Bihar Plastic Ind....