Allowed

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Supreme Court21 Mar 20172017 INSC 1274 · [2017] 4 S.C.R. 6802017 INSC 1274

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sales tax reassessment of a works contractor based on an audit objection regarding exempted goods consumed in execution of contracts. The Court held 'information' under Section 19 is wide but requires the assessing officer's own satisfaction; here he merely followed the audit direction, so the reassessment order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Re-assessment order dated 27.02.2006 and High Court order dated 17.11.2006 set aside; parties to bear own costs.

What the court decided

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. versus State of Jharkhand… — GST and Indirect Tax | Supreme Court (2017)

¶1

[2017] 4 S.C.R. 680

¶2

¶3

M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD.

¶4

¶5

STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

¶6

(Civil Appeal No. 5390 of2007)

¶7

¶8

MARCH 21, 2017

¶9

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.)

¶10

Tax/Taxation - Bihar Finance Act, 1981 - s.19 - 'Information' under, if covers ·'audit objection' - Held: The word "information" c used in s.19 is of the widest amplitude and should not be construed narrowly - It comprehends not only variety of factors including information from external sources of any kind but also the discovery of new facts or information available in the record of assessment not previously noticed or investigated - On the basis of information received, if the assessing officer is satisfied that reasonable ground D exists, then in that case the power of the assessing authority extends to re-opening of assessment - However; in the present case, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied on the basis of information given by the audit team that any of the turnover of the appellant-Company had escaped assessment so as to invoke s.19 - Re-assessment order E therefore held to be without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Bihar Sales Tax Rules - rr. 12, 20 - Form XIV. IXC.

¶11

Words & Phrases - "Information"- Meaning of in context of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 - Discussed.

¶12

¶13

Allowing the appeal, the Court

¶14

HELD: 1.1 Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 ('the State Act') very clearly prescribes that the competent authority, upon information, if satisfied that reasonable ground exists to believe that any turnover of a registered dealer G or a dealer to whom grant of registration certificate has been refused in respect of any period has, for any reason, escaped assessment or any turnover of any such dealer assessed under sub-Section (5) of Section 17 has been under-assessed or assessed at a rate lower than that which was correctly applicable, may, within

¶15

¶16

680

¶17

MIS LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

¶18

681

¶19

eight years from the date of order of assessment, proceed to assess or reassess the amount of tax in respect of such turnover. [Para 19] [690-E-F]

¶20

¶21

1.2 According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'information' means facts told, heard or discovered about somebody/something. The Law Lexicon describes the term 'information' as the act or B process of informing, communication or reception of knowledge. The expression 'information' means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or parties ur as to law relating to and/or having a bearing on the assessment. A mere change of opinion or having second thought about it by the c competent authority on the same set of facts and materials on the record does not constitute 'information' for the purposes of the State Act. But the word "information" used in the aforesaid Section is of the widest amplitude and should not be construed narrowly. It comprehends not only variety of factors inclu:ling information from external sources of any kind but also the D discovery of new facts or information available in the record of assessment not previously noticed or investigated. Suppose a mistake in the original order of assessment is not discovered by the Assessing Officer, on further scrutiny, if it came to the notice of another assessor or even by a subordinate or a superior officer, it would be considered as information disclosed to the incumbent E officer. If the mistake itself is not extraneous to the record and the informant gathered the information from the record, it will be information in his possession within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act. In such cases of obvious mistakes apparent on the face of the record of assessment, that record itself can be a source F of information, if that information leads w a discovery or belief that there has been an escape of assessment or under-assessment or wrong assessment. [Para 21] [691-D-H; 692-A-B]

¶22

¶23

¶24

1.3 Assessment proceedings can be reopened if the audit objection points out the factual information already available in the records and that it was overlooked or not taken into consideration. Similarly, if audit points out some information or facts available outside the record or any arithmetical mistake, assessment can be re-opened. [Para 22] (692-C]

682

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶29

(2017] 4 S.C.R.

¶30

A Commissioner of Income Tax v. P. V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 9 sec 272 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 547; Commissioner of Income Tax, UP., Lucknow v. Mis Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai (1971) 3 SCC 654 : [1972] 1 SCR 357; Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another v. Income Tax Officer &Another (1993) 4 SCC 77: [199~] B 1 Suppl. SCR 28; Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. v. S. P. Kasture and Others AIR 1968 SC 565 : [1968] SCR 661 - relied on.

¶31

1.4 The expression 'information' means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or c parties or as to law relating to and/or after bearing on the assessment. On the basis of information received anci if tlie assessing officer is satisfied that reasonable ground exists to believe, then in that case the power of the assessing authority extends to re-opening of assessment, if for any reason, the whole D or any part of the turnover of the business of the dealer has escaped assessment or has been under assessed and the assessment in such a case would be valid even if the materials, on the basis of which the earlier assessing authority passed the order and the successor assessing authority proceeded, were same. The question still is as to whether in the present case, the E assessing authority was satisfied or not. [Para 27] [694-H; 695-A-C]

¶32

1.5 From a perusal of the last paragraph of the report of the audit party, it is clear that the Assessing Officer was not s:..tisfied on the basis of information given by the audit party that anr of the F turnover of the appellant-Company had escaped assessment so as to invoke Section 19 of the State Act. [Para 29) [699-B-C]

¶33

Mis Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society, New Delhi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (1979) 4 SCC 248 : [1980] 1 SCR 442; Bhimraj Madan/al v. State of G Bihar and Another (1984) 56 STC 273; Usha Sales (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The State of Bihar (1985) 58 STC 217; Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Mis Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. Quilon (1988) 2 SCC 264 : [1988) 3 SCR 248; H Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Virgo Steels,

¶34

MIS LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

¶35

683

¶36

Bombay and Another (2002) 4 SCC 316 : (2002) 2 SCR 934; Supreme Paper Mills Limited v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta and Others (2010) 11 SCC 593 : (2010) 3 SCR 798; Chatturam & Ors. v. CIT, Bihar AIR 1947 FC 32 - referred to.

¶37

¶38

Case Law Reference

¶39

Case	LawReference		B
(1980) 1SCR442	referredto	Para11
(1984) 56STC273	referredto	Para11
(1985) 58STC217	referredto	Para11
(1988) 3SCR248	referredto	P'lra11	c
[2002) 2SCR934	referredto	Para15
[2010) 3SCR798	referredto	Para15
AIR1947FC32·	referredto	Para15
(1998] 2 Suppl.SCR547	relied on	Para23	D
[1972] 1SCR357	relied on	Para24
[1993) 1 Suppl.SCR28	relied on	Para25
[1968)SCR661	relied on	Para26	E

¶40

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5390 of2007.

¶41

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2006 of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP No. 2630 of 2006.

¶42

Pravin H. Parekh, Sr. Adv., Sameer Parekh, Sumit Goel, F Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Ms. Ritika (For Mis. Parekh & Co.), Advs. for the Appellant.

¶43

Amarendra Saran, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Somesh Jha, R. K. Ojha, Anil K. Jha, Advs. for the Respondents.

¶44

The Judgment of-the Court was delivered by·

¶45

¶46

R. K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 17 .11.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (T) No. 2630 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Mis

684

[2017] 4 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶51

A Larsen & Toubro Ltd.-the appellant-Company while upholding the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur.

¶52

2. Brief facts:

¶53

(a) The appellant-Company, having its registered office at Mumbai, B is a public limited company and is involved in manufacturing, trading, leasing and construction business throughout the country. At the relevant time, the appellant-Company was involved in the execution of civil work contracts for its client, viz., Tata Iron & Steel Company 1 td. (TISCO) and had been filing its returns under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 c (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act') in the Commercial Taxes Department, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur.

¶54

(b) For the Assessment Year (AY) 1991-92, the appellantCompany filed returns under the State Act. However, the assessment D proceedings in relation to the above period, i.e., AY 1991-92 was completed in the year 1996 and an assessment order dated 24.01.1996 was passed by the assessing authority.

¶55

( c) After the assessment proceedings, an audit team of the Auditor General, Bihar, audited the assessment order dated 24.01.1996 ar,d found E that the dealer was allowed exemption of Rs. 3,12,47,916/-, being the amount of goods consumed by the appellant-Company during the course of execution of works contract. The appellant-Company claimed that such goods were purchased on payment of tax but no declaration in Form IX-C along with other evidence was submitted whereas the production or declaration ofF orm IX-C was mandatory, hence, the claim F was not allowable and the said fact was conveyed to the afsessing authority.

¶56

(d) On 28.09.2000, the office of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur, served a show cause notice to the appellant-Company to state as to why tax should not be levied on it for G the amount of Rs. 3, 12,4 7 ,916/- which was wrongly exempted from being taxed under the provision of the State Act.

¶57

(e) After affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellantCompany, a re-assessment order dated 27.02.2006 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur

¶58

¶59

1^~

¶60

MIS LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 685 [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.)

¶61

whereby an additional demand of Rs. 35,72,4 75/- was created against A the appellant-Company.

¶62

(f) Being aggrieved by the re-assessment order dated 27 .02.2006, the appellant-Company preferred a writ petition being W.P. {T) No. 2630 of 2006 before the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 17 .11.2006, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant B -Company while upholding the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur.

¶63

(g) Aggrieved by the order dated 17 .11.2006, the appellantCompany has preferred this appeal by way of special leave.

¶64

Heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company and Mr. Amarendra Saran and Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶65

¶66

Point for consideration:

¶67

¶68

The only point for consideration before this Court is whether on the information given by the audit team of the Auditor General, Bihar, the Assessing Authority was satisfied that reasonable ground exists to believe that a part of the turnover of the appellant-Company has escaped · assessment within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act based on which the assessing officer can re-open the assessment?

¶69

¶70

Rival contentions:

¶71

Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company contended that an 'audit objection' cannot be construed as 'information' within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act, based on which the assessing officer can change his opinion and re-open the assessment. The 'audit objection' relates to tax levied on turnover relating to 'consumables' wherein there is no sale/deemed sale involved. Consumables by its very nature are goods used for own consumption. The assessment order dated 24.0 l .1996 rightly records the said fact.

¶72

Learned senior counsel further contended that the original assessment order pecifically considered whether purchase tax i tq he paid under the State Act on the disputed it1:1mij and the ~!\mil was q((l9igeg in negative and hence taxing the items later qn is a meri;: change of opipion by the Assessing Authority on the very same set of facts that

686

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶78

[2017) 4 S.C.R.

¶79

A were available on the date of passing the assessment order dated 24.01.1996.

¶80

Learned senior counsel further contended that non-filing of Form IX-C under Section 11 of the State Act read with Rule 12 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') B does not attract the levy in the facts of the present case as the goods are used for 'own consumption' and there is no sale or 'deemed sale' of the said goods involving a transfer of property in the said goods to anybody.

¶81

It was further contended that Section 19 of the State Act read with Rule 20 and Form XIV of the Rules specifically requires the c satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority regarding requirement of reassessment before the issuance of the notice in this regard. The initiation of the re-assessment proceedings and the subsequent re-assessment order dated 27.02.2006 are illegal as there was no satisfaction on the part of the Prescribed Authority about existence ofreasonable grounds to believe that turnover has escaped assessment. Hence, the same are D liable to be set aside. .

¶82

Learned senior counsel further contended that it is relevant to note the circumstances under which the appellant-Company was unable to produce the relevant records. The assessment year (AY) in question is 1991-92. The assessment order in relation to the same was passed E on 24.01.1996. The show cause notice proposing to re-open the assessment was served on the appellant-Company on 28.09.2000 which was replied in detail by the appellant-Company vide letter dated 13.11.2000. Thereafter, for a period of five years, there was no communication from the side of the respondents and the appellantF Company, under the bonafide belief that the letter dated 13.11.2000 had satisfied the requirements of show cause notice, forwarded all the records to their dumping yards at Chennai. Learned senior counsel contended that owing to the above circumstances the failure of the appellant-Company to produce the aforesaid records was not at all willful.

¶83

G 10. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the order ofreassessment dated 27.02.2006 is illegal and the assessment proceedings cannot be re-opened on the basis of audit objection, as the same does not amount to 'information' as contemplated under Section 19 of the State Act. The impugned order amounts to change of opinion on the same set of facts and Jaw which were available even at the time of H passing the order of assessment.

¶84

687

¶85

M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

¶86

In support of the above contentions, learned senior counsel has relied upon the following decisions, viz., Mis Indian & Eastern IVe>''Spaper Society, New Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (1979) 4 SCC 248, Bhimraj Madan/a/ vs. State of Bihar ami Another (1984) 56 STC 273, Usha Sales (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar ( 1985) 58 STC 217 and Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam vs. Mis Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. Qui/on ( 1988) 2 SCC 264.

¶87

¶88

¶89

Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the assessing authority has not revised the assessment on the basis of the audit report only rather it had satisfied itself before c revisi_ng and the same can be seen from the fact that it had rejected part of the audit opinion and applied its mind before passing the order impugned.

¶90

Learned senior counsel for the respondent-State further submitted that the 'audit objection' in the present case is an 'information' within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act and the competent authority has rightly re-assessed the turnover and demanded legally payable valid tax which was escaped. He further submitted that. the word 'information' used in the Section is of the widest amplitude and comprehends variety of factors including information from external sources of any kind including discovery of new facts or information available in the record of assessment not previously noticed or investigated.

¶91

Learned senior counsel for the respondent-State submitted that if there is obvious mistake apparent on the face of the record of assessment, that record itself can be a source of information, if that information leads to a discovery or belief that there has been an escape of assessment. He finally submitted that there is no illegality in the reassessment order dated 27.02.2006 as well as in the order dated 17 .11.2006 passed by the High Court and the claim of the appellantCompany is liable to be rejected.

In support ofhis submissions, learned senior counsel has relied upon the following decisions, viz., Com111issio11er of Income Tax vs. · P. V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. ( 1998) 9 SCC 272, Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. S.P. Kasture and Others AIR 1968 SC 565, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Another (2002) 4

¶97

¶98

688

¶99

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶100

[2017] 4 S.C.R.

¶101

A SCC 316, Supreme Paper Mills Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta and Others (20 l 0) 11 SCC 593 and Chatturam & Ors. vs. CIT, Bihar AIR 1947 FC 32.

¶102

Discussion:

¶103

In the instant case, an audit team of the Auditor General, B audited assessment order dated 24.01.1996 and found that the dealer was allowed an exemption of Rs. 3,12,47,916/- being the amount for goods consumed by the appellant-Company during the course of execution of works contract. It is the claim of the appellant-C_ompany that those goods were purchased on payment of tax but no declaration c in Form IX-C along with other evidence was submitted. The same fact was brought to the notice of the assessing authority which in furtherance thereof issued a show cause notice to the appellant-Company. The production of Form IX-C was held to be mandatory and the claim of the appellant-Company was disallowed and an order of re-assessment dated 27.02.2006 was passed by the competent authority for an additional D amount of tax of Rs. 35,72,475/- after following the due procedure of law.

¶104

The point arises for consideration is as to whether an 'audit objection' can be construed as 'information' within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act based on which the assessing officer was satisfied E that reasonable grounds exist to believe that any part of the turnover of the appellant-Company had escaped assessment under Section 19 of the State Act.

¶105

Learned senior counsel for the appellant-Company argued

¶106

that it is mere a change of opinion which resulted in re-assessment order

¶107

F and is not information as contemplated under Section 19 of the State Act. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-State submitted that 'audit objection' in the present case is definitely' information' within the meaning of Section 19 and the High Court has rightly uphold the reassessment order dated 27.02.2006.

¶108

G 19. In view of the above, it is relevant to quote Section 19 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 which is as under:-

¶109

" 19. Tunwver 1>f registered dealer escaping assessment - (1) Ifupop information which has come into his possession, the prescribed authority is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to

¶110

¶111

689

¶112

MIS LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

¶113

believe that any turnover of a registered dealer or a dealer to A whom grant of registration certificate has been refused under the third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 14, in respect of any period has, for any reason, escaped assessment or any turnover of any such dealer or a dealer assessed under sub-section (5) of Section 17 has been under-assessed or assed at a rate lower than B that which was correctly applicable or any deductions therefrom has been wrongly made, the prescribed authority may, subject to such rules may, be made by the State Government under this part, and-

¶114

(a) Within eight years from the date of the order of the assessment or reassessment where the said authority has reasons to believe that the dealer has concealed, omitted or failed to disclose willfully the particulars of such turnover or has furnished incorrect particulars of such turnover and thereby returned figures below the reason amount, (b) Within eight years' from the date of the order of the assessment or reassessment in any other case.·

¶115

¶116

¶117

Serve on the dealer a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 17 and proceed to assess or reassess the amount of E tax due from the dealer in respect of such turnover, and the provisions of this part shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as ifthe notice under this sub-section was a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 17:

¶118

Provided that the amount of tax shall be assessed or reassessed after allowing such deductions as were permissible during the said period and at rates at which it would have been assessed had the turnover not escaped assessment or full assessment, as the case may be.

¶119

¶120

Explanation: - Production before the prescribed authority of G accounts, registers or documents from which material facts could, with due diligence, have been discovered by the said authority, will not necessarily amount to full disclosure within the meaning of this section.

¶121

¶122

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶123

[2017] 4 S.C.R.

¶124

690

¶125

A (2) (a) The prescribed authority shall, in a case falling under clause (a) of sub-section (I), direct that the dealer shall pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding three times but not less than an amount equivalent to the amount of tax which is or may be assessed on the escaped turnover.

¶126

B (b) The penalty imposed under clause (a) shall be in addition to the amount of tax which is or may be assessed on the escaped turnover, and the order imposing penalty may precede the assessment of escaped turnover.

¶127

(c) For determining the amount of penalty under clause (a), c where the penalty precedes assessment under clause (b) the prescribed authority shall quantify the amount of suppression and tax thereon provisionally in the prescribed manner.

¶128

(d) No order shall be passed under this sub-section without giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard in the prescribed

¶129

D manner.

¶130

Any assessment or reassessment made and any penalty imposed under this section shall be without prejudice to any action which is or may be taken under section 49."

¶131

Sub-Section ( l) of Section 19 very clearly prescribes that the competent

¶132

E authority, upon information, if satisfied that reasonable ground exists to believe that any turnover of a registered dealer or a dealer to whom grant of registration certificate has been refused in respect of any period has, for any reason, escaped assessment or any turnover of any such dealer assessed under sub-Section (5) of Section 17 has been underassessed or assessed at a rate lower than that which was correctly

¶133

F applicable, may, within eight years from the date oforder ofassessment, proceed to assess or reassess the amount of tax in respect of such turnover.

¶134

For ready reference, the relevant portion of the assessment G order dated 24.01.1996 is also extracted hereunder:-

¶135

"The Company has used the following work under its Tender work on its level and if we separate the both, then it is like this.

¶136

Camp equipments Rs. 227301.00

¶137

¶138

Electric goods for work site Rs. 773223.00

¶139

MIS LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 691 [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

¶140

Electrode Welding CableandAccessories	Rs.871294.00	A
Fuel & Lubricants	Rs.3189205.00
General Consumables	Rs.2945086.00
(Handgloves) contenvest
Oxygen & D.A.Gas	Rs.21223.00	B
Plywood for Shuttering	Rs.2826674.00
Safety Appliances	Rs.408392.00
Spares	Rs.8232442.00
Staging Materials	Rs.3888798.00	c
Shuttering &Walk-way(For Timber)	Rs.4191982.00
ToolsandTackles	Rs.3672296.00
Total	Rs.3,12,47,916.00"	D

¶141

It is also pertinent to understand the meaning of the word 'information' in its true sense. According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'information' means facts told, heard or discovered about somebody/ something. The Law Lexicon describes the term 'information' as the E act or process of informing, communication or reception of knowledge. The expression 'information' means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or parties or as to law relating to and/or having a bearing on the assessment. We agree that a mere change of opinion or having second thought about it by the competent authority on the same set of facts and materials on the record does not F constitute 'information' for the purposes of the State Act. But the word "information" used in the aforesaid Section is of the widest amplitude and should not be construed narrowly. It comprehends not only variety of factors including information from external sources of any kind but 11lso the discovery of new facts or information available in the record of 0 assessment not previously noticed or investigated. Suppose a mistake iri the original order of assessment is not discovered by the Assessing Officer, on further scrutiny, if it came to the notice of another assessor or even by a subordinate or a superior officer, it would be considered as information disclosed to the incumbent officer. If the mistake itself is not

¶142

¶143

F

¶144

¶145

692

¶146

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶147

r2017] 4 S.C.R.

¶148

A extraneous to the record and the informant gathered the information from the record, the immediate source of information to the Officer in such circumstances is in one sense extraneous to the record. It will be information in .his possession within the meaning of Section 19 of the State Act. In such cases of obvious mistakes apparent on the face of the B . record of assessment, that record itself can be a source of information, if that information leads to a discovery or belief that there has been an escape of assessment or under-assessment or wrong assessment.

¶149

There are a catena of judgments of this Court holding that assessment proceedings can be reopened if the audit objection points out the factual information already available in the records and that it C was overlooked or not taken into consideration. Similarly, if audit points out some information or facts available outside the record or any arithmetical mistake, assessment can be re-opened. ·

¶150

In P. V.S. Beedies (supra), this Court has held as under:-

¶151

"3. We are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High D Court were in error in holding that the information given by internal · audit party could not be treated as information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act. The audit party has merely pointed out a fact which has been overlooked by the Income Tax Officer in the assessment. The fact that the recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22-9-1992 was not noticed E by the Income Tax Officer. This is not a case of information on a question oflaw. The dispute as to whether reopening is permissible after audit party expresses an opinion on a question oflaw is now being considered by a larger Bench of this Court. There can be no dispute that the audit party is entitled to point out a F factual error or omission in the assessment. Reopening of the case on the basis of a factual error pointed out by the audit party is permissible under law. In view of that we hold that reopening of the case under Section 147(b) in the facts of this case was on the basis of factual information given by the internal audit party and was valid in law. The judgment under G appeal is set aside to this extent."

¶152

(emphasis supplied)

¶153

Similarly, in Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., Lucknow vs. Mis Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai (1971) 3 SCC 654, this Court has held as under:-

¶154

¶155

693

¶156

M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OP. JHARKHAND [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

¶157

"6. Section 15 of the Act provides that ifin consequence of definite information which has come into the possession of the Excess Profits Tax Officer he discovers that profits of any chargeable accounting period have escaped assessment, etc., he may at any time serve a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included'in a notice under Section 13 and may proceed to assess or reassess the amount of such profits liable to excess profits tax. The power so conferred can be exercised in the course of the original assessment or reassessment. It is essential, according to the law laid down by this Court, that before any action can be taken or an order made under Section JO-A there should be a proceeding which should be pending for assessment C or reassessment of excess profits tax ..... "

¶158

"7. On the first question the submission of Mr M.C. Chagla for the assessee is that there was no definite information which had come into possession of the Tax Officer from which it could be said that he had discovered that profits of the relevant chargeable D accounting period had escaped assessment. We are unable to agree. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had made an order on October 10, 1947, in the proceedings relating to the assessment of income tax of the assessee that there had been only a partial partition in respect of the movable property business of Gurbux Rai. That was certainly an information which came into the possession of the Excess Profits Tax Officer not because of any change of opinion by himself but because of the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the income tax proceedings. This Court has consistently- held that the Income Tax Officer would have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which is in pari materia with Section 15 of the Act if he acted on information received from the decision of the superior authorities or the court even in the assessment proceedings. (See R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Firm v. C/Tl and Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Hyderabad v. Nawab Sir Osfiian Ali Khan Bahadur, H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad and others. It has next been urged that the alleged object of having a partial partition, namely, of reducing the liability to excess profits tax had never been examined by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the income tax proceedings and H

694

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶166

[2017] 4 S.C.R.

¶167

A therefore it could not be said that there had been escapement of income as a result of information derived from his order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner apparently did not go into that question because the proceedings before him related to assessment of income tax. Section 10-A of the Act is a special provision which deals with the transactions designed to avoid or reduce liability to B excess profits tax. The information which came into possession of the Excess Profits Tax Officer of partial partition having been effected was relevant for the purpose of Section 15 and once he had initiated proceedings under that section he was perfectly competent and had jurisdiction to examine for the purpose of c Section I 0-A whether partial partition had been effected for avoidance or reduction ofliability to excess profits tax. The first question, therefore, should have been answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue."

(emphasis supplied)

In Mis Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Another vs. l11co111e Tax Officer & Another (1993) 4 SCC 77 this Court has held as under:-

¶173

"25 ..... He may start reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts come to light which were not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information ..... "

¶174

The contention whether finding the information from the very facts that were already available on record amounts to information for F the purpose of Section 19 of the State Act, it would be sufficient to refer 'to a judgment of this Court in Anandjiharidas & Co. vs. S.P. Kasture AIR 1968 SC 565 wherein it was held that a fact which was already there in records doesn't by its mere availability becomes an item of "information" till the time it has been brought to the notice of assessing G authority. Hence, the audit objections were well within the parameters ofbeing construed as 'information' forthe purpose of section 19 of the State Act.

¶175

The expression 'information' means instruction or knowledge derived from an external source concerning facts or parties or as to law relating to and/or after bearing on the assessment. We are of the clear

¶176

¶177

MIS LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND 695 [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

¶178

viewthatonthebasisofinfonnation rec issatisfied that reasonablegroundexist poweroftheassessing authorityextend foranyreason,thewholeoranypart o thedealerhasescaped assessmentorh assessmentinsuchacasewouldbeva basisofwhichtheearlier assessing au successor assessing authority proceed stillisastowhetherinthepresent ca satisfiedornot. 28.Atthis stage,wedeemitapp dealt with betweentheauditteamandt totheinitiation of re-assessment proc StateActwhichisasunder:- "Part - II Section-'N	eivedandiftheassessing officer stobelieve,theninthatcasethe store-opening of assessment,if ftheturnover ofthebusiness of asbeenunderassessedandthe lidevenifthematerials,onthe thority passedtheorderandthe ed,weresame. Thequestion se,theassessing authoritywas ropriatetoreproducethematter heassessing authority whichled eedings under Section19ofthe	A B C
Para1.Nonlevyof purchasetax	Rs.24,19,385.31	D
Nameofthedealer	_Mis_Larsen&Toubro Ltd.,ECCConstruction Group,Jamshedpur
RegistrationNo.	JU848 ®	E
NatureofBusiness	WorksContract
Asstt.Year	1991-92
DateofOrder	. 24.01.1996
GT.O.Determined	Rs.17,57,01,372.00	F
Less:Saleoftaxpaidgoods	Rs.1,31,75,779.63 Rs.16,25,25,592.37
Less:Worksdonebysub-contractor	Rs.27,17,304.00 Rs.15,98,08,208.37	G
Less:Labour chargesand overheadcharges	Rs. 11,91,66,742.38
	Rs.4,06,41,465.99	H

¶179

696

¶180

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶181

[2017) 4 S.C.R.

¶182

A	Tax was levied
	@4%on Rs. 17,48,096.90	Rs. 69,923.00
	@ 8% on Rs. 1,96,71,099.14	Rs.15,73,678.93
	@ 9% on Rs. 1,45,34,488.10	Rs. 13,08,103.92
B	@ 10% on Rs. 2,048.00	Rs. 204.80
	@11% on Rs. 4,82,125.70	Rs. 53,033.86
	@ 12% on Rs. 42,03,608.15	Rs. 5,04,432.97
c		Rs. 35,09,387.36
	Add:Tax@l % onRs.5,55,08,612.25	Rs. 5,55,086.12
		Rs.40,64,473.48
D	Surcharge @ 10% on Rs. 39,94,549.60	Rs. 3,99,454.00
		Rs. 44,63,928.44
E	Penalty U/S16(8)	Rs. 920.00
	The Scrutinyofassessment order rev allowed exemptionofRs.11,91,66, 74	.Rs.44,64,848.44 ealed that the dealer was 2.38 on accountoflabour
F	charges and overhead charges claimed	as detailed below:
	Labour Charges	Rs.7,02,77,549.00
	Overhead charges	Rs. 1,87,15,545.00
	Goods consumedincourseof
G	executionofwork	Rs. 3,12,47,916.00 Rs. 12,02,41,010.00

¶183

Out of the above claim, a sum of Rs. 10,74,267.62 to us disallowed as below:

¶184

¶185

697

¶186

M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

¶187

Taxpaid claim disallowed	Rs.3,50,698.37	A
Recoveryofcement taxable	Rs.2,20,972.50
Amountofplanthirecharges	Rs.5,02,596.75

¶188

Rs.10,74,267.62 B

¶189

The dealer had furnished the statement of material utilized in the contract work and goods consumed for own use. Scrutiny of assessment order revealed that the dealer was allowed exemption on Rs. 3,12,47,916.00 being the amount of goods consumed or used itself in course of execution of work, details of which were c discussed in the assessment order. It had been stated by the assessing authority that such goods were purchased on payment of tax, but no declaration in form IX C along with other evidences were kept on record. Production of declaration form in IX C was mandatory one and hence the claim was not allowable. ·

¶190

The entire materials received from outside the State or^D purchased within the State without payment of tax was normally leviable to tax at specified rates under section 12 of B.F. Act 1981. Under section 4 of the Act ibid, every dealer liable to pay under section 3 of the Act, if otherwise disposes the goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State was also liable to E purchase tax. In this connection a reference to the judgement of Hon 'ble Karnataka High Court and duly confirmed by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case ofChevvabbo Vs. State ofKarnataka ( 1986) 62 STG 194 Se) is invited ....... Disposal of goods in this section (Similar to those Karnataka) was clarified as transfer of F title over the goods otherwise than sale, included gifts, own use or consumption section 4 of the Act (B.F. Act) is similar to section 7 A of Tamil Nadu General Court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M.K. Kandaswami (1975 36 STC 191) where it was held that (1) this Section is a separate charging provision in the Act and is not subject to section 3 and (ii) brings to tax goods, the G sale of which would normally have been taxed at the same point or other in the State but could not be taxed even due to destroying them or other reasons. Thus the purchase tax was leviable on goods consumed for own use. Since cost price/purchase price was reflected as value of goods consumed for own use of the H

¶191

[2017] 4 S.C.R.

¶192

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

698

dealer, the tax at the rate specified in section 12 of the Act ibid was leviable. In this case, even if same charges like Electrodes, Welding Cables, welding appliances, fuel and lubricants, oxygen and P.A. Gas safety, safety appliances valued at Rs. 44,90, 114.00 was not considered as taxable, the consumable goods worth Rs. 2,67 ,57 ,802.00 attracted levying of tax at specified rates.

¶197

The case may please be re-examined in the light of above observation and levying of purchase tax amounting to Rs.24, 19,385.31 (including additional tax and surcharge) as calculated below may be considered under intimation to audit.

¶198

c	s. No.	Nameof Goods	Purchasevalue ofgoods	Rate applicable	Non-levyof purchasetax
D	l.	Camp Equipment, general consumable,
		plywood for shuttering
		sparesand	Rs.	8%	Rs.
		staying	1,81,20,301.00		14,49,624.08
		material
E	2.	Electrical	Rs.	12%	Rs.5,95,824.60
		Goodsand Timber	49,65,205.00
	3.	Tools&	Rs.	4%	Rs.1.46,891.84
		Tackles	36,72,296.00		Rs.21,92,340.52
F				.	Rs.20,454.48
		Addi.Tax@			Rs.22,12,795.00
		1%on			Rs.
		20,45,448.68			2,06,590.31
		Surcharge@			Rs.24,19,385.31
G		10% on 20,65,903.16

¶199

The use of fuel and lubricants may please be bifurcated and value oflubricants only may be levied to tax.

¶200

On being pointed out in audit, it was stated that since the goods H had not been transferred to contractee co-under the provisions of

¶201

699

¶202

M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

¶203

works contract, but it had been consumed and so it does not come A under the purview of taxation. The reply is not tanable in view of the above judgements and hence the case needed to be reviewed." (emphasis supplied)

¶204

From a perusal of the last paragraph of the aforementioned report of the audit party, it is clear that the Assessing Officer was of the B opinion that as the goods had not been transferred to appellant-Company but had been consumed, so it does not come under the purview of taxation. In other words, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied on the basis of information given by the audit party that any of the turnover of the appellant-Company had escaped assessment so as to invoke Section 19 of the State Act. From the above, it also appears that the assessing C officer had to issue notice on the ground of direction issued by the audit party and not on his personal satisfaction which is not permissible under law.

¶205

In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the order dated 27 .02.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, D Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur is without jurisdiction and the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition filed by the appellantCompany. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 27 .02.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Urban Circle, Jamshedpur as well as the order dated 17 .11.2006 passed E by the Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand. Howe.ver, the parties shall bear their own costs.

¶206

Divya Pandey

¶207

Appeal allowed.

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jsw Infrastructure Limited and Anr. versus Kakinada Seaports Limited and Ors.

Pukhrajmal Sagarmal Lunkad (D) through His Lrs. and Others etc. versus the Municipal Council, Jalgaon and Others

P. Sivanandi versus Rajeev Kumar & Ors.

Dr. Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.

Mrs. Hema Khattar & Anr. versus Shiv Khera