Partly allowed

M/S S K Samanta and Co. Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Raipur

Chhattisgarh HC11 Sept 2023WPT/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court ordered impugned judgments of the Commercial Tax Tribunal set aside and remitted the appeal to it. The Court held that the Tribunal must decide pending applications regarding turnover break-up evidence brought on record during the appeal, rather than dismissing without comment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Tribunal in Second Appeals A/108/283/2020/ET, A/107/283/2020/VAT and A/109/283/2020/CST are set aside and matter remitted to decide appeals afresh considering pending applicatio

M/S S K Samanta and Co. Private Limited… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPT No. 47 of 2023

¶5

M/s S.K. Samanta And Co. Private Limited Branch/works Office At Plot No.7 To 13, Industrial Area, Silpahari, Basia, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Formerly At Gandhinagar, Dipika, District Korba) And Registered Office At 2/5 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata, 700020, West Bengal. (Tax Identification Number 22724603206) Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Giridhari Kumar, S/o Gorachand Kumar Aged 57 Years, Residing At B-308, Rama Green City, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Raipur Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

The Additional Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Bilaspur Division - II Bilaspur (C.G.). ---- Respondens

¶10

WPT No. 48 of 2023

¶11

M/s S K Samanta and Co. Private Limited Branch / Works Office At Plot No. 7 To 13, Industrial Area, Silpahari, Basia, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Formerly At Gandhinagar, Dipika, District - Korba) And Registered Office At 2/5 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata, 700020, West Bengal. (Tax Identification Number 22724603206) Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Giridhari Kumar, S/o Gorachand Kumar, Aged 57 Years Residing At B-308, Rama Green City, Sarkanda, Bilaspur – 495006. ---- Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Raipur Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

The Additional Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Bilaspur Division - Ii Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶16

WPT No. 49 of 2023

¶17

M/s S K Samanta And Co. Private Limited Branch/ Works Office At Plot No. 7 To 13, Industrial Area, Silpahari, Basia, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Formerly At Gandhinagar, Dipika, District Korba) And Registered Office At 2/5 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata, 700020, West Bangal (Tax Identification Number 22724603206) Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Giridhari Kumar, S/o Gorachand Kumar

¶18

-2-

¶19

Aged 57 Years Residing At B-308, Rama Green City, Sarkanda, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495006 ---- Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Raipur Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶22

The Additional Commissioner Taxes Raipur Gst Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶23

The Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Bilaspur Division-Ii, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶24

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agrawal and Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocates For State : Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, G. A. and Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶27

Order on Board

¶28

11.09.2023

¶29

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh whereby the second appeals No.A/108/283/2020/ET, A/107/283/2020/VAT & A/109/283/2020/CST preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed.

¶30

1. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of contract work under the works contract. The Assessing Officer imposed the VAT Tax amounting to Rs. 4,05,00,955 /- pertaining to financial year 2013-14. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the first appellate authority i.e. the Appellate Additional

¶31

-3-

¶32

Commissioner Commercial Tax, Atal Nagar, Raipur and the same was dismissed on 13.12.2019. The petitioner thereafter preferred three different appeals before the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and on 21.07.2022 the same were dismissed affirming the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority.

¶33

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the second appeals, the petitioner has preferred an application according to the provisions of section 50 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax for bringing facts and arguments to support the grounds raised in all the second appeals on 18.9.2020 before the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur and those applications have not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and thus the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

¶34

1. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would oppose the submission and submit that the objection raised before the Second Appellate Authority was not raised before the First Appellate Authority and for the first time the petitioner has taken this plea before this Court. He would

¶35

-4-

¶36

further submit that the present petition, in its present form, is not maintainable according to the Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy for redressal of grievances.

¶37

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶38

1. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the Assessing Officer in all three cases imposed VAT Tax amounting to Rs. 4,05,00,955/-. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred first appeal before the First Appellate Authority and after rejection, second appeal before the learned Tribunal. During the pendency of second appeals the petitioner moved an application in all pending appeals to bring certain facts and documents to support the grounds raised in all the appeals but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration and without deciding those applications passed the orders impugned.

¶39

1. The petitioner by way of the said applications stated that the VAT Tax imposed by the Assessing Officer suffers from certain defects as entire turnover has been taken into consideration for the assessment whereas there was break

¶40

-5-

¶41

up of turn over pertaining to the State of Chhattisgarh and this issue has not been considered by the learned Tribunal.

¶42

1. The records were called from the Tribunal and from the perusal of the records, it appears that applications were moved by the petitioner for bringing facts and arguments in support of the grounds made in the appeals along with certain documents but the applications have not been taken into consideration, therefore, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the orders passed by the tribunal in Appeals No.A/108/283/2020/ET, A/107/283/2020/VAT & A/109/283/2020/CST are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to decide all the appeals afresh after taking into consideration the applications moved by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the parties.

¶43

1. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶45

Nadim

M/S S K Samanta and Co. Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Raipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S K Samanta and Co. Private Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Raipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Setthi @ Avinash Setthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakshmi Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

D.C.Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s S.K. Samanta and Co. Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Raipur

M/S S K Samanta and Co. Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Raipur