TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nandgaon. 2. Challenge is also the Order dated 12.7.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed in Revision Case No.07/49(3)/2018-Regional by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur. 3. Vide Order dated 12.7.2018, the Additional Commissioner has rejected the aforesaid Revision Case preferred by the Petitioner, affirming the Order dated 30.6.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in a proceeding under Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the VAT Act"). 4. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is, as to whether the Respondent Authorities would have the power to reopen the assessment made without there being an assessment order, only accepting the deemed assessment made by the Assessee and tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d held the order of reopening of assessment to be bad when the order of assessment itself was not issued by the Authorities. The said Order of the Single Bench was subjected to challenge by the State before the Division Bench in the aforesaid Writ Appeals. The Division Bench rejected the bunch of Appeals of the State, affirming the Order passed by the Single Bench. The Division Bench in its Order dated 18.8.2022, in Paragraphs 23 to 26 and 28 & 29, has held as under: "23. Section 22(1) of the VAT Act, amongst others, provides that where the assessment or re-assessment of a dealer has been made under the VAT Act and for any reason any sale or purchase of goods liable to be taxed under the VAT Act or the Act repealed by this Act duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 25. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the use of the words "from the date of order of assessment" appearing in Section 22(1) of the VAT Act clearly indicates that the original assessment order has to be in existence prior to exercising the power of reassessment. At paragraph 34 of the judgment under assailment, it was observed as follows : "34. Thus, in sum and substance, in order to invoke jurisdiction under Section 22(1) of the VAT Act or to initiate proceedings for reassessment there must be an order of assessment duly passed by the assessing officer and it must be in existence as a condition precedent to invoke Section 22(1) and the limitation prescribed is five calendar years from the date of commencement of such p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeding for reassessment under Section 22(1) of the VAT Act and the order of reassessment ultimately passed is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and dehors the provisions contained in Section 22(1), as such, it deserves to be quashed. 37. This leads me to the next question as to whether the penalty imposed invoking Section 22(2) of the VAT Act is sustainable. Section 22(2) of the VAT Act provides that the commissioner shall, where the omission leading to assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) is attributable to the dealer, impose upon him a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of tax so assessed or re-assessed but shall not be less than the amount of tax assessed. The penalty is imposable 22 lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been assessed at a lower rate or (c) any wrong deduction has been made while making the assessment or (d) a rebate of input tax has incorrectly been allowed while making the assessment or (e) is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue consequent to or in the light of any judgment or order of any Court or Tribunal, which has become final. The aforesaid conditions precedent cannot be countenanced in absence of an order of assessment in writing and in that view of the matter, in respect of deemed assessment, recourse cannot be taken under Section 22 of the VAT Act. 29. Rule 20 under Chapter VI of VAT Rules, 2006 relates to "Returns". Rule 20(2)(d), on which reliance is placed by Mr. Sharma was inserted by not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T Act by the Authorities, it is not disputed by learned State Counsel. However, learned State Counsel only tried to justify their stand inasmuch as, an assessment order is not required and the deemed assessment submitted by the Petitioner under Section 21(1) of the VAT Act is good enough for reopening of assessment invoking Section 22 and the deemed assessment itself has to be considered and treated as an order of assessment. 10. Learned State Counsel further submits that the Judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of "M/s TATA Teleservices Limited" (supra) has already been challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the matter is yet to come up for hearing. 11. Given the submissions made by learned ....