TARA PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition (Tax) has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the respondent on 10th December, 2014, which is at Annexure-8. Attachment order has been passed by the respondent authorities for non-payment of the amount of the Value Added Tax under Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the months of May, June and July, 2005 for which this petitioner has already preferred a revision application before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, State of Jharkhand along with the stay application in the memo of revision application, which is at Arinexure-6. It has been stated in paragraph 1 thereof that the Assessing Officer who has passed the order is in habit of passing ex-parte orders and always hurriedly attaching the bank accounts. This habit has also been narrated for the past period i.e. for the months of January, February, March and April. The behaviour of the Assessing Officer is evident from the order passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, which is at Annexure-4 dated 16th September, 2014. Thus, even for a previous period i.e. January, February, March and April, 2014 as he has passed ex-parte order, of assessment, the order of very same officer was quashed and the matter was remanded. The said officer is consistent in commissioning his mistakes and therefore, another ex-parte order has been passed for the months of May. June and July, 2014. This petitioner is also consistent in preferring revision application before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes along with stay application. But, this time revision application as well as the stay application was pending before the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes; arguments canvassed by both the sides, are over and since long, the judgment has been kept reserved by the Commissioner. Commercial Taxes in a revision application in which scrutiny assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer for the months of May, June and July, 2014. Thus, for this period the attachment order has been passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh on 10th December, 2014 which is at Annexure-8. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a fly-by-night company. In fact, the petitioner is a regular tax payer. Huge amount of tax is being paid by the petitioner regularly since several decades i.e. much before the bifurcation of the State.

(2.) Moreover, for a previous period i.e. January, February, March and April, 2014 the said Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte order and, therefore, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes had quashed the order and remanded the matter. The said Assessing Officer is in habit of passing ex-parte order and not properly appreciating the provisions of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 especially Section 18(4)(ii) and (iii) read with Section 33 of the Act, 2005 and, therefore, again direction was sought for from the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi, and the order was passed by him which is at Annexure-7 dated 5th December, 2014. Thus, for previous period i.e. January, February, March and April, 2014 not only the scrutiny order passed by the Assessing Officer was quashed vide order dated 16th September, 2014 by Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, but, further guidance has also been given vide order dated 5th December, 2014 which are at Annexures-4 & 7 respectively to the memo of this petition.

(3.) Assessment order was passed for the year 2011-2012. Now under Section 79 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 an appeal can be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the petitioner had preferred an appeal also before expiry of the limitation period, but. the very same Assessing Officer has attached the bank accounts. Repeated mistakes is not an error of the officer, but, a deliberate attempt. Provisions of appeal and revision will be of no help to the assessee when this is the attitude of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside similar type of error committed by the Assessing Officer, who has passed the attachment order of the bank accounts vide order dated 10th December, 2014 which is at Annexure-8 to the memo of the petition.