SIEMENS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since similar challenges have been raised in these writ petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts relevantfor considering the challenge raised in the writ petitions are that the petitioner is a 'Company' incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and has been registered as a 'dealer' in the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of Sec. 2(16A) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act of 1949'). The Dealer was liable to pay cess on bringing goods within the limits of Navi Mumbai MunicipalCorporation - hereinafterreferred to as the Municipal Corporation under Sec. 152A of the Act of 1949. Accordingly, the Dealer filed returns forthe period commencing from 1/4/2008 to 31/3/2009 and thereafter for each financial year till 31/3/2013 under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Cess on Entry of Goods) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996'). The assessment of cess is carried out under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996. For each of the aforesaid years, the Dealer was issued notice in FormH as provided by Rule 25(3) of the Rules of 1996 since the Commissioner was not satisfiedwith the returns filed by the Dealer. By such notice in FormH, the Dealer was required to produce all evidence on which the Dealer sought to rely in support of the returns as filed. The relevant dates when Form-H came to be issued by the Municipal Corporation are as under:-

(3.) Shri Gopal Mundhra, learned counsel for the petitioner-Dealer referred to the provisions of Sec. 152A of the Act of 1996 alongwith Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996 and submitted that though the Municipal Corporation initiated the process of assessment within the time prescribed by Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996, the failure to complete the assessment process within reasonable time rendered the continuation of the process of assessment to be bad in law. It was submitted that under Rule 25(3) of the Rules of 1996 when notice under Form-H was issued, the Dealer was required to produce such evidence that was in possession of the Dealer on which it sought to rely in support of the returns or produce such evidence that was mentioned in the notice. The Commissioner under Rule 25(3) of the Rules of 1996 is required to consider all such evidence that is produced on the date specified in the notice or as soon as may be thereafter so as to assess the amount of cess due from the Dealer. Under Rule 25(4) of the Rules of 1996, if a registered Dealer fails to comply with the terms of any notice issued under Rule 25(3) of the Rules of 1996, the Commissioner is required to assess the amount of cess to the best of his judgment. Further, under Rule 25(5) of the Rules of 1996 for failure on the part of the registered Dealer to furnish returns in respect of any period or before the date prescribed in the earlier returns, the Commissioner is required to assess the amount of cess due within three years from the end of the year in which such period occurs after giving the Dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Relying upon the aforesaid provisions it is submitted that though the period for completing the assessment may not be specifically provided in Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996, it could not mean that for an indefinite and unreasonable period such process of assessment could continue. After issuance of notice in Form-H the Dealer had produced some material in support of its returns. However, the Commissioner thereafter did not take any further step to complete the assessment for a period of more than almost ten years from the initial notice in Form-H that was issued on 2/12/2009. It was urged that in absence of any prescribed period of limitation the Commissioner was required to act within reasonable period and in the facts of the present case the reminder issued by the Municipal Corporation in Form-H on 24/9/2019 was highly belated. Even this notice in Form-H referred to Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (Local Body Tax) Rules which was not at all applicable. In that regard, the learned counsel for the Dealer placed reliance on the decisions in Reliance Transport and Travel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others [2022 (3) BomCR 389], Bombay Dyeing and ManufacturingCompany Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner [2022 SCC OnLine Bom 325], BashirAhmedChand Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra & Another [2010(1) Mh.L.J. 500],Government of India Versus Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras & Others [(1989) 3 SCC 483], State of Punjab & Others Versus Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [(2007) 11 SCC 363], Bhagwandas S. Tolani Versus B.C. Aggarwal & Others [1982 SCC OnLine Bom 453], Universal Generics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India [1993 SCC OnLine Bom 741], Sunrise Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India [2019 (366) E.L.T. 994 (Guj.)], State of A.P. Versus N.Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154], Wilco & Company Versus Union of India [2002 SCC OnLine Mad 1176], M/s J.M. Baxi & Co. Versus The Government of India & Others [2016 SCC OnLine Mad 3176], F.Jagat Ram Om Parkash Versus Excise & Taxation Officer [AIR 1965 P&H 133 (FB)] and Gupta Smelters Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India [2019 (365) E.L.T. 77 (P & H)]. It was thus submitted that the reminder issued in Form-H in all writ petitions on 24/9/2019 was required to be quashed and set aside.