2022 (3) TMI 450 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Validity of Reassessment-cum-penalty Order - non-existing audit objection, which was raised against the original assessment order - whether reassessment order passed u/s 42(3) of the JVAT Act, 2005 could not have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bokaro Circle, Bokaro because there was no existing assessment order passed u/s 35 of the said Act - fresh assessment order u/s 35(6) of the JVAT Act - validity of initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s 40(1) of the JVAT Act on the basis of audit objection - HELD THAT - On consideration of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that since the matters involve questions on facts and law as well, the petitioners should avail of the alternative remedy of appeal or revision under Sections 79 and 80 under Chapter-IX of JVAT Act, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore seeks liberty to avail of alternative remedy. It is open for him to do so, if permissible in law. Writ petitions are disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing and setting aside of reassessment-cum-penalty order under JVAT Act, 2005.
2. Declaration regarding validity of reassessment order.
3. Direction for fresh assessment order.
4. Quashing of demand notice.
5. Declaration on initiation of reassessment proceedings.
6. Seeking appropriate writs/orders for justice.

Issue 1 - Quashing and Setting Aside of Reassessment-cum-penalty Order:
The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking relief from the reassessment-cum-penalty order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. They argued that the original assessment order was set aside by the Commissioner, making the reassessment order invalid. The petitioners contended that the reassessment order did not consider crucial documents like Form JVAT 404, rendering it illegal and void ab initio.

Issue 2 - Declaration Regarding Validity of Reassessment Order:
The petitioners sought a declaration that the reassessment order could not have been passed as there was no existing assessment order in place. They argued that the reassessment order under JVAT Act, 2005 was based on a non-existing audit objection, lacking proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 3 - Direction for Fresh Assessment Order:
The petitioners requested a direction for the concerned Respondent to pass a fresh assessment order as directed by the Commissioner. They emphasized the importance of considering all documents supporting the Petitioner's claims, such as Form JVAT 404, for a fair assessment process.

Issue 4 - Quashing of Demand Notice:
The petitioners also sought the quashing of the demand notice issued in relation to the reassessment-cum-penalty order. They argued that the demand for tax, interest, and penalty was unjustified, especially considering the amount already paid by the Petitioner.

Issue 5 - Declaration on Initiation of Reassessment Proceedings:
The petitioners contended that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was void ab initio as the Assessing Officer failed to record personal satisfaction and reasons for believing that there were discrepancies in the Petitioner's turnover for the relevant year.

Issue 6 - Seeking Appropriate Writs/Orders for Justice:
The petitioners requested any other appropriate writs, orders, or directions deemed fit by the Court for imparting substantial and conscionable justice to the Petitioner. They cited legal precedents to support their arguments against the reassessment proceedings initiated solely based on audit objections without proper assessment.

In the judgment, the Court acknowledged the factual and legal complexities involved in the case and advised the petitioners to pursue alternative remedies of appeal or revision under the relevant provisions of the JVAT Act, 2005. The Court disposed of the writ petitions while granting the petitioners the liberty to avail themselves of the alternative remedy if permissible under the law.