9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 563 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxVires of rule 13A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 as amended by notification dated February 1, 2000 and also section 21(1)(a)(i) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 challenged - Held that - In Voltas s case 2007 (5) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the Supreme Court fully agreed with the view of Patna High Court in Larsen & Toubro s case 2003 (11) TMI 565 - PATNA HIGH COURT that rule 13A as amended in 2000, was not workable. The Supreme Court therefore did not interfere with the judgment. As noticed above, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of rule 13A as amended in 2006 when the impugned order of reassessment has been passed after the amended rule came into force. As a matter of fact, the whole case of the petitioner in the writ petition and the reliefs sought for therein are wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. W.P. dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the reassessment order dated May 5, 2006. 2. Vires of Rule 13A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 as amended by notification dated February 1, 2000. 3. Vires of Section 21(1)(a)(i) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Reassessment Order: The petitioner challenged the reassessment order dated May 5, 2006, issued under sections 17(3) and 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The initial writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on November 27, 2006, on the grounds that the petitioner should avail of the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order as provided under the Act. The Supreme Court, however, remitted the matter back to the High Court, stating that the question of vires of the provisions of the Act and Rules cannot be adjudicated by the authority under the Act, thus necessitating a fresh decision by the High Court. 2. Vires of Rule 13A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983: The petitioner contested the vires of Rule 13A, as amended by notification dated February 1, 2000, on the grounds that the provisions were unworkable and ultra vires in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan and the Patna High Court's judgment in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar. The Patna High Court had previously struck down Rule 13A in Jamshedpur Contractors' Association v. State of Bihar, stating that the rule was unconstitutional as it restricted deductions to prescribed percentages even if actual expenses were higher. The amended Rule 13A was again challenged in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar, where the Patna High Court held that the amended rule did not prescribe the manner and extent of deductions for "any other charges," rendering it unworkable. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Voltas Ltd., which agreed that the rule did not make the provisions fully workable. The High Court noted that the impugned reassessment order was passed after the amendment of Rule 13A on March 24, 2006, which aimed to rectify the defects in the earlier rule by specifying deductions for various charges. However, the petitioner did not challenge the vires of the amended Rule 13A of 2006. 3. Vires of Section 21(1)(a)(i) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981: The petitioner also challenged Section 21(1)(a)(i) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, arguing that the section was unworkable and ultra vires. The High Court, however, observed that the reassessment order was passed after the amendment to Rule 13A in 2006, which addressed the defects and made the provisions workable. The court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the vires of the amended rule, and thus, there was no ground to interfere with the reassessment order based on the old Rule 13A. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the reassessment order was passed after the amendment of Rule 13A in 2006, which made the provisions workable. The petitioner failed to challenge the vires of the amended rule, and therefore, the court found no reason to interfere with the reassessment order. The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
|
