Allowed

M/s Indra Eit Nirman Udyog Through Its Proprietor Sri Uday Shankar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Sept 2016CWJC/13296/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging Value Added Tax demand notices. Finding no satisfactory proof of service of preliminary notices as required under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the Court quashed the impugned orders and the demand notices dated July 22, 2015, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated July 22, 2015, and the Demand Notices are set aside. Matters remanded to the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh. The Assessing Officer shall dispose of matters based on reply

M/s Indra Eit Nirman Udyog Through Its Proprietor Sri… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12936 of 2016

¶3

=========================================================== M/s Indra Eit Nirman Udyog Through Its Proprietor, Sri Uday Shankar Chaudhary, Son of Late Indra Narayan Chaudhari, Resident of Village- Makhanpur, P.O.Basha, Mirjapur, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, Dist.- Darbhanga

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary Commercial Taxes Department, Bihar.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga. 4. The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga.

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s

¶10

with

¶11

=========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13296 of 2016

¶12

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

¶13

M/s Indra Eit Nirman Udyog Through Its Proprietor Sri Uday Shankar Chaudhary Son of Late - Indra Narayan Chaudhari Resident of Village-Makhanpur, P.O.Basha, Mirjapur, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, Dist- Darbhanga

¶14

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶17

The Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga

¶19

The Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga Circle, Darbhanga

¶20

.... .... Respondent/s

¶21

=========================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.12936 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, S.C. 11 Mr. Sriram Krishna, A.C. to S.C. 11 (In CWJC No.13296 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, S.C. 11 Mr. Sriram Krishna, A.C. to S.C. 11

¶22

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

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.12936 of 2016 dt.22-09-2016

¶25

2/3

¶26

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 22-09-2016

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The challenge in both the writ applications is an order dated 22^nd of July, 2015 raising demand of Rs.2,10,800/- from the petitioners for the each Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 towards the balance amount of Value Added Tax.

¶29

The stand of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that such demand was raised without serving any notice upon the petitioners, as required under Section 31(1) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

¶30

In the counter affidavit filed, the State relies upon notices dated 18^th of June, 2015 (Annexure-B). As per the said proceeding the said notices have been purportedly sent under ordinary post.

¶31

We find that there is no satisfactory proof of issuance of any notices to the petitioners. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to give a finding that, in fact, notices were served upon the petitioners.

¶32

In view thereof, both the writ petitions are allowed, impugned orders and the Demand Notices both dated 22^nd of July 2015, are set aside and both the matters are remanded back to the

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.12936 of 2016 dt.22-09-2016

¶34

3/3

¶35

Assessing Officer to proceed afresh with the matters in accordance with law. It is made clear that no fresh notices are required to be issued to the petitioners and that the petitioners shall present themselves before the Assessing Officer concerned on 5^th of October, 2016 at 11.00 A.M. with a reply and other relevant documents whereupon the concerned Assessing Officer shall proceed to dispose of the matters in accordance with law.

¶36

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶37

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶38

Amin/-

¶39

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date03.10.2016 Transmission N.A. Date

M/s Indra Eit Nirman Udyog Through Its Proprietor Sri Uday Shankar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Indra Eit Nirman Udyog Through Its Proprietor Sri Uday Shankar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

M/s Dina Metals Ltd. Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Dharm Nath Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chander Prasad Vs The Allahabad Bank and Ors.

M/s Indra Eit Nirman Udyog Through Its Proprietor, Sri Uday Shankar Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Mohan Bricks Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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