Petitioner challenged demand notices issued under the Bihar VAT Act. The court stayed coercive steps pending the disposal of related appeals and revisions by authorities within two weeks.
Directed relevant authorities to dispose of pending appeals and revisions within two weeks; stayed coercive steps against the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2325 of 2015
====================================================== SHANDONG WEICHAI HUAFENG POWER ( I ) Pvt. Ltd ., a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No.A/199, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Khairne, Navi Mumbai-400710 and its local office at 91-Saryar Villa, Montessori School Lane, Boring Road, Patna-1 (Bihar) through its Regional Service Manager Sushant Ranjan son of Pramod Ranjan Sinha, resident of Savitri Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony and District-Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Agrawal, Advocate with Messrs. A.K. Pandey, Satish Kumar & Shiva Kumar, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to PAAG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA)
2 05-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner seeks quashing of two demand notices, both, dated 27.10.2014, issued
Patna High Court CWJC No.2325 of 2015 (2) dt.05-02-2015
2/4
under Section 47 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the VAT Act’), addressed to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Mumbai and another to respondent-Reliance Infratel Limited, Patna, for deducting and making payment of amount of Rs.47,85,437/and Rs.2,60,59,685/- for the period 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, in terms of the calculation, as made by the petitioner, it would be entitled to refund of Rs.7,16,493.10 and Rs.41,92,477.16 for the said two periods, but just to deny the refund, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim regarding the Works Contract Tax (WCT) deducted at source as also denied the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the petitioner resulting in the said unlawful demands together with interest and penalty for fraud committed in favour of the department. It is also submitted that with regard to the assessment made for the period 2009-10,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2325 of 2015 (2) dt.05-02-2015
3/4
the petitioner has already filed an appeal as against the original demand of Rs.1,27,60,948/-, out of which an amount of Rs.79,75,674/- has been paid and has also challenged the said assessment before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Central Division, by filing an appeal being STPR-190/2013-14, but despite passage of nearly one year, the appeal has remained pending. In the meantime, demand notices under Section 47 of the VAT Act have been issued. Similarly, with respect to the demand for the period 2010-11, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which is pending for the last three and a half months.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ application is disposed of with direction to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Central Division and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar to consider and dispose
Patna High Court CWJC No.2325 of 2015 (2) dt.05-02-2015
4/4
of the appeal and the revision respectively, pending before them, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate in the hearing and disposal of the appeal and the revision.
Until such decision, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
(Anjana Mishra, J)
PNM
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issuance of coercive demand notices should be stayed while appeals and revisions are pending before the competent authorities.
Whether the joint commissioner and commissioner of commercial taxes should expedite the disposal of pending appeals and revisions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shandong Weichai Huafeng Power ( I ) Pvt. Ltd
State of Bihar
The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar
The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Central Division
The Commercial Taxes Officer, Patliputra Circle
The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India
Ramesh Kumar Datta
Anjana Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
