SRI RAM MINERAL COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the assessee has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the demand dated 26.2.2013. A further prayer seeking a direction to the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, to levy Value Added Tax on the actual sale price and not on any hypothetical or assumptive price, has been made. The petitioner is a Mines owner, engaged in the business of mining. The petitioner-company was granted mining lease in respect of Iron Ore and Manganese over an area of 657 acres in the villages Barajamda, Khasjamda and Parambaljori within the District of Singhbhum West. The petitioner has been paying royalty @ 10% of the sale price. It is stated that Iron Ore is a decontrolled item and there is no law restricting or fixing the sale price of Iron Ore. On 18.2.2013, a notice was served upon the petitioner whereby it was intimated that the petitioner-company has been assessed for the period 2010-11 under Section 35(7) and Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005, The petitioner was directed to appear on 26.2.2013 on which date the representative of the petitioner-company namely, Mukesh Kumar and Pawan Verma appeared however, no opportunity of hearing was offered and the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 was passed raising a demand of Rs. 3,47,38,258.54.

(2.) A counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is stated that details of returns filed with the Mining Department, Chaibasa was procured and on perusal of the same, it was found that the petitioner-company used to show price in its sale invoices which was lesser than the actual market price and the average price fixed by IBM. The matter thus, became concealment of actual sate price leading to evasion of tax, A notice was accordingly, issued under Sections 35 and 40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005 for the period 2010-11. On 26.2.2013, neither any explanation was submitted nor any evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner-company and therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the final order.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.