9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 942 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReopening of assessment - order of assessment itself was not issued by the Authorities - HELD THAT - The dispute raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court rendered in the case of State of Chhattisgarh Ors. v. M/s Tata Teleservices Limited 2022 (12) TMI 264 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT . These Writ Appeals by the State were preferred against the Order passed by the Single Bench in Writ Petition (T) No.79/2017 on 20.3.2018. In the said Writ Petition, the Writ Court in identical set of facts had 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. Similar matter which came up for consideration before the Division Bench in TAXC No.74/2022 in the matter of M/s. Iron Junction Rajbandha Maidan, Raipur Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax 2022 (9) TMI 1407 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT where keeping in view the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Tata Teleservices Limited 2022 (12) TMI 264 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT , the Division Bench had disposed of the said Tax Case also in terms of the Order passed in M/s. Tata Teleservices Limited . It has been emphatically held that unless there is a specific order of assessment under Section 21(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, there cannot be reopening of an assessment made under Section 21(2) of the said Act. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements by the Division Bench of this High Court, the present Writ Petition, being squarely covered by the same, deserves to be and is accordingly allowed.
Issues involved:
The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Assessment Order dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed in Case No.03/2015/Section 22(1)(Regional) as well as to the Assessment Order of the same date i.e. dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed in Case No.03/2015/Section 22(1)(Entry Tax) by Respondent No.3 - the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, Circle-V, Raipur. Assessment Orders Challenge: Both the Assessment Orders dated 25.11.2016 were challenged before the Additional Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, Division No.1, and were rejected vide Orders dated 31.3.2018 (Annexure P-3) and 13.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) in Appeal No.06/2018(Regional) and Appeal No.03/2018(Entry Tax) respectively. Appellate Tribunal Affirmation: The Appellate Orders were further contested before the Chhattisgarh Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, which affirmed the Assessment Orders and the Appellate Orders in its Orders dated 7.4.2022 (Annexures P-5 & P-6). Legal Precedent Application: The dispute raised in the present Writ Petition aligns with a Division Bench decision of the High Court in the case of "State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. M/s Tata Teleservices Limited" on 18.8.2022. The Division Bench emphasized the necessity of a formal adjudication by the assessing officer for the words "order of assessment" in Section 22(1) of the VAT Act, highlighting the importance of an existing assessment order before invoking reassessment proceedings. Judicial Interpretation: The Division Bench's interpretation emphasized that the assessment or reassessment of a dealer must be made by way of an order before exercising powers under Section 22 of the VAT Act within the prescribed five-year period from the date of the assessment order. The court clarified that deemed assessments cannot be subject to reassessment proceedings under Section 22 of the VAT Act, emphasizing the need for a written order of assessment. Decision and Disposition: In light of the judicial pronouncements by the Division Bench, the present Writ Petition was allowed as it was squarely covered by previous decisions. The two impugned Orders dated 7.4.2022 were set aside and quashed based on the legal principles established in previous judgments by the High Court.
|
