9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gaged in the manufacture of Industrial Gases. During the relevant Assessment Year i.e. A.Y. 2015-16, regular Assessment proceedings were carried out under Section 35 (6) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act ("JVAT Act"), which has resulted in the passing of an Order dated 30.03.2019. The claim of the Petitioner for exemption from payment of Value Added Tax on "facility charges" of Rs. 68,91,15,398/- had been disallowed. The Petitioner subsequently challenged the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2019 in the Appellate proceedings under Section 79 of the JVAT Act. During the pendency of the Appeal, the entire amount in dispute was deposited by the Petitioner under protest. However, subsequently, the Petitioner settled its disputes by applying under the Jharkhand Kar Samadhan Yojna, 2022. In the meanwhile, petitioner was verbally informed by the Department in and around September 2023 that there exists a certain outstanding amount of interest payable by the Petitioner in respect of A.Y. 2015-16, in light of certain Audit Objections. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the Petitioner was not aware of any such Order or Objection. On making enquiries, it was found that the petitioner ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .08.2023 passed by this Court in the case M/s. Rungta Mines Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(T) No. 3311 of 2022, wherein this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to hold as under: - "51. A holistic reading of Section 42 would reveal that said provision contains three different situations/circumstances under which re- assessment proceeding can be initiated. So far as Section 42 (1) and 42 (2) is concerned, the Legislature has deliberately inserted non-obstante clause extending the period of limitation but the Legislature has not extended the period of limitation pursuant to audit objection under Section 42 (3). This, in our opinion, has been deliberately omitted by the Legislature as it was conscious that re-assessment proceeding would have been otherwise initiated under Section 40 (1) on 'information being received by the Audit Party', but the only further requirement was to record 'reasons to believe'. What has been dispensed with in Section 42 (3) is the requirement of recording 'reasons to believe' only. It is under the said circumstances, non- obstante clause was not inserted in Section 42 (3) extending the period of limitation from the date of receipt of audit objection, and, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsmission Corpn. Ltd. v. CG Power & Industrial Solutions Ltd., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 15 has categorically held in para 67 as held as under:- "67. It is well settled that availability of an alternative remedy does not prohibit the High Court from entertaining a writ petition in an appropriate case. The High Court may entertain a writ petition, notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy, particularly: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of a fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice or (iii) where the impugned orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) the vires of an Act is under challenge. Reference may be made to Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 : AIR 1999 SC 22] and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. v. Gayatri Construction Co. [Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corpn. v. Gayatri Construction Co., (2008) 8 SCC 172], cited on behalf of Respondent 1." 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has made following submissions: - (a) The Petitioner is guilty of delay and latc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the entire proceedings as a nullity. In this regard reference is made to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Alagendran Finance Ltd., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 215. As such, since the Impugned Order was in the nullity, its invalidity could be set up at any time and at any stage. Further, no amount of concession / waiver can give an authority, jurisdiction which it did not possess. By the time the Respondents passed the Impugned Order dated 07.09.2021, it had already become coram non judice. Reference may be made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Health Services Haryana, reported in, (2013) 10 SCC 136. The mere fact that the Petitioner inadvertently could not become aware of the Impugned Order dated 07.09.2021, till September 2023, will not make an Order which has been passed without jurisdiction, to be valid in the eyes of law. As stated above, since the Order is a nullity, its invalidity can be set up at any point of time and alternative remedy is not a bar when the order is wholly without jurisdiction. 10. As far as the objection in relation to the alternate remed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
