Quashed

M/s. Kandhgopi Bricks Udyog v. The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC20 Sept 2016CWJC/13199/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court quashed an assessment order passed under the Bihar VAT Act. The court held that proceedings initiated in April 2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 violated the two-year limitation period prescribed under Section 28(1) of the Act, regarding an incorrect claim by respondents that limters were invoked via a March 2015 notice.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is allowed and the order dated 30th of May, 2015 issued under Section 28 of the Act is quashed.

M/s. Kandhgopi Bricks Udyog Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13199 of 2016

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

M/s. Kandhgopi Bricks Udyog, Village Kandhgopi P.O. Hathwa -841436 and District Gopalganj though its Partner Paras Nath Singh, Son of Late Ram Roop Singh, Resident of Village- Jigna Jagarnath, P.O. Jigna Math, P.S Mirganj and District Gopalganj.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Bihar having its Office at Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶8

The Commercial Taxes Officer, Gopalganj Circle, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

¶12

Mr. Shive Kumar, Advocate.

¶13

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar, A.C. to G.A.- 9

¶14

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶15

and

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 20-09-2016

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The challenge in the present writ application is to an order passed on 30^th of May, 2015 under Section 28(1) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) read with Section 8 of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods in to Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993.

¶19

The challenge to the said order is on the ground that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 28 of the Act after the expiry of two years. Therefore, same is

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.13199 of 2016 dt.20-09-2016

¶21

2/3

¶22

not maintainable in terms of the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Act itself.

¶23

A perusal of the record shows that for the Assessment Year 2012-13, the proceedings were initiated on 29^th of April, 2015 i.e. after the expiry of two years of the end of the financial year 2012-13.

¶24

Section 28(1) of the Act provides that no proceedings for such assessment shall be initiated after the expiry of two years from the period for which it relates. Thus, any proceedings for the Assessment Year 2012-13 could have been initiated only up to 31^st of March, 2015 and not thereafter.

¶25

In the counter affidavit, the stand of the respondents is that the proceedings were in fact initiated vide notice dated 3^rd of March, 2015. However, we do not find that the notice dated 3^rd of March, 2015 is a notice for assessment under Section 28 of the Act. In fact, it is a notice for payment of the Entry Tax for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Though it mentions that if the tax is not deposited by 25^th of March, 2015, the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act shall be initiated but that does not mean that vide the said notice proceedings have been initiated under Section 28 of the Act. It was a warning. At best the assertions made in the notice can be read as a warning to initiate proceedings under Section 28 of the Act but it

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.13199 of 2016 dt.20-09-2016

¶27

3/3

¶28

cannot be said that the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act has been initiated by issuing notice on 3^rd of March, 2015.

¶29

Since the proceedings have been initiated in the month of April, 2015, the same is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.

¶30

Consequently, the writ application is allowed and the order dated 30^th of May, 2015 is quashed.

¶31

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶32

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶33

P.K.P. N.A.F.R.

¶34

M/s. Kandhgopi Bricks Udyog v. The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Kandhgopi Bricks Udyog v. The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramayan Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vishwak Sen Pandey and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manju Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Rajan Int Vs The State Of Bihar and Anr.

Mrf Limited Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kameshwar Prasad Ojha Vs Bihar State Housing Board and Ors.