M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

and law involved, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these tax appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶30

Though, TAXC-10-2023 relates to assessment year 2016-17, whereas TAXC-09-2023 relates to assessment year 2015-16, but for the sake of clarity, facts are taken from TAXC-10-2023 as leading case, which are thus: In favour of the appellant, eligibility certificate for exemption from VAT and CST was issued for the period upto 21.09.2019 for the products i.e. Pig Iron, Power, Sinter, Oxygen Gas, Bloom Billet, Round etc., Sponge Iorn, Coke, Flats, Leaf Spring, Rounds & Rods etc. It is also the case of the appellant that they have made investment in pellet plant etc., however, the State Level Committee (SLC) refused to grant eligibility certificate with respect to pellets to the appellant vide order communicated on 08.05.2017. Against the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the State Appellate Forum, which also stood rejected vide order dated 09.05.2018. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant preferred Writ Petition (Tax) No.142 of 2018 (M/s. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) before this Court on 11.07.2023. Meanwhile, on 07.08.2018 the assessing authority assessed tax and penalty against the appellant and, against which, the appellant preferred appeal before the Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, which stood party allowed on

¶31

Page No.3 of 4 IN TAXC-10-2023 & TAXC-09-2023

¶32

20.12.2019, as the additional demand was limited after adjustments. However, the appellant further preferred appeal against the said order of Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Tax dt. 20.12.2019 before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Raipur (for short the “tribunal”) and same was also rejected on 15.02.2022 and, thereafter, the reference made under Section 55(1) of the VAT Act, 2005 was also rejected vide order dated 22.08.2022.

¶33

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that vide order dated 11.07.2023, passed by the Single Bench of this Court in WPT-142-2018, the order passed by the SLC dt. 25.04.2017, whereby eligibility certificate with respect to pellets was denied to the appellant, and the order passed by the State Appellate Forum dt. 09.05.2018, affirming the order of the SLC dt. 25.04.2017, both have been set aside and the period of exemption from 01.03.2015 has already been extended uptill 30.06.2017, therefore, the learned tribunal be directed to make a reference on appropriate substantial question of law. Hence, both the appeals be allowed.

¶34

On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of both the appeals.

¶35

We have heard, learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶36

Page No.4 of 4 IN TAXC-10-2023 & TAXC-09-2023

¶37

Since WPT-142-2018 preferred by the appellant herein has already been allowed and orders dt. 25.04.2017 (passed by the SLC) & 09.05.2018 (passed by the State Appellate Forum) both have been set aide and benefit of exemption has already been extended in favour of the appellant, we are inclined to allow both these appeals and to call upon the learned tribunal to make reference on the following common substantial question law;

¶38

“ Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in finalizing the assessment proceeding without waiting for finalization of issue of eligibility certificate pending before this Court in WPT-142-2018 and, thus, depriving the appellant of its vested rights, for which it is entitled to by virtue of the statutory notification ? ”

¶39

It is ordered accordingly.

¶40

Consequently, both the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost.

¶41

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned tribunal for information and compliance. It be also sent through e-mail and fax.

¶42

sd/sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶43

s@if

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meghuram Sahu Vs Jitendra Yadav

Bgr Mining and Infra Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bgr Mining and Infra Limited Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Principal Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise Vs M/S Mahamaya Ispat

M/S Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Smt. Sudha Jain Vs Kamal Chand Jain