HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts and as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. In these writ petitions, assessment order dated January 6, 2008 (sic January 6, 2009), passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Unit D, levying taxes and interest and consequent demand notice dated January 19, 2009 are under challenge. W.P. (C) No. 1430 of 2009, W.P. (C) No. 1438 of 2009 and W.P. (C) No. 1440 of 2009, relate to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively, with corresponding demand of Rs. 18,24,900, Rs. 17, 14, 824 and Rs. 3,82,860. Also under challenge is the order dated November 21, 2008 passed by the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam, respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers under section 105 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for short, "the Act", clarifying that aluminium rolled products such as sheets, plates and foils shall not come under SI. No. 26 of the Second Schedule to the Act, and that such products shall be taxable at the rate of 12.5 per cent. The petitioners also pray for a direction that aluminium rolled products such as sheets, plates, foils fall within the purview of SI. No. 26 of the; Second Schedule to the Act and, therefore, liable to be taxed at the rate of four percent.

(2.) The petitioner-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in aluminium and its products and is registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioners paid tax at the rate of four per cent on the sale of aluminium rolled products manufactured by it treating the same to be covered under entry 26 of the Second Schedule to the Act. On June 27, 2008, the jurisdictional Superintendent of Taxes, namely, respondent No. 3, upon inspection of documents and papers in the premises of the petitioners, seized certain documents and papers on the ground that the petitioner-company had accounted the sales derived from aluminium sheets, wire rods at lower rate of tax than actually chargeable rate of tax thereon, resulting in under declaration of tax liability during the relevant periods. Respondent No. 3 served notice dated July 10, 2008, requiring the petitioners to appear before him on July 29, 2008 and to show cause why the turnover of the petitioners for the relevant periods shall not be charged at the rate of 12.5 per cent instead of four per cent and as to why proceedings for levying correct amount of recoverable tax along with interest and penalty as per the Act shall not be initiated against the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioner-company had filed a petition under section 105 of the Act before respondent No. 2, seeking clarification, as to why the aluminium ingots, wire rods and rolled products and extrusions should not fall within the ambit of entry 26 of the Second Schedule to the Act. By the impugned order dated November 21, 2008, respondent No. 2 gave his clarification. On the basis of the said clarification, assessment order was passed and demand notice was issued, as have already been taken note of.