w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Maa Bhadrakali Coke Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Dhanbad v/s The State of Jharkhand & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909AS1985PLC002332

Company & Directors' Information:- G L COKE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24117AS1998PTC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- M K COKE INDUSTRIES P LTD. [Active] CIN = U00319JH1992PTC005059

Company & Directors' Information:- BHADRAKALI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549AS2009PTC008957

Company & Directors' Information:- DHANBAD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310WB1959PTC024373

Company & Directors' Information:- S J COKE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00318JH1987PTC002578

Company & Directors' Information:- U D COKE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23101ML2005PTC007807

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. COKE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC166326

Company & Directors' Information:- I C COKE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U23101AS2004PTC007321

    W.P. (T) No. 4049 of 2008

    Decided On, 07 January 2020

    At, High Court of Jharkhand

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

    For the Petitioner: M/s. Rahul Lamba, Advocate. For the Respondents: M/s. Krishna Shankar, S.C. (L&C)-II.



Judgment Text


Deepak Roshan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.09.2007, passed by the respondent Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adm.), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, in case No. 46(4) 24/06-07, communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 962 dated 11.10.2007, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, whereby in exercise of the power under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, a suo-motu revision was initiated by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, setting aside the re-assessment order dated 29.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Incharge, Dhanbad Circle, in compliance of the Appellate Order, whereby the sales to the tune of Rs. 2,04,58,865/- which were admitted to be inter-State sale in the original returns, were allowed to be claimed as intra-State sales in the revised returns, and restoring the original assessment order dated 10,06.2003, whereby the aforesaid sales were treated to be inter-State sales, as submitted in the original returns.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ application are that in the relevant assessment year, the petitioner-dealer had used 888 road permits of blue colour, which are used for inter-State sales, and had made the sales on the basis of those permits to the tune of Rs. 3,11,96,797/-. In the original returns, the entire sales were shown to be the inter-State sales, but later on the petitioner filed revised returns showing the sales to the tune of Rs. 2,04,58,865/- out of the aforesaid sales, to be the intra-State sales, even though the purchasers were having the outside State names and addresses, claiming those sales to be the counter-sales made by the petitioner-dealer.

4. The tax liability of the petitioner was assessed by the Assessing Authority, who initially rejected the claim of the petitioner by the assessment order dated 10,06.2003, treating entire sales to be inter-State sales, against which appeal was filed, and the matter was remanded by the Appellate Authority to the Assessing Authority, which by order dated 29.05.2006 accepted the claim of the petitioner that the sales to the tune of Rs. 2,04,58,865/- were in fact intra-State sales. The Assessing Authority took into consideration the guidelines issued on 10.01.2002, by the State of Jharkhand, in its Department of Commercial Taxes, for coming to the conclusion that the sales were in fact intra-State sales, and not inter-State sales. The petitioner was satisfied with this order, but in exercise of the suo-motu power under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.) Dhanbad, revised the order dated 29.05.2006, passed by the Assessing Authority, and restored the original assessment order passed on 10.06.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the present application has been filed.

5. The impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner shows that the petitioner-dealer was directed to produce the cash-book, ledger, sale memos, sales tax ledger, profit & loss account, income tax accounts, and road permit register etc., but the dealer did not produce those documents before the Joint Commissioner, who had to pass the order in absence of those documents ex-parte, placing reliance upon the facts that while making the transactions, the petitioner had used the blue road permits which are used for inter-State sales, and had also submitted the original returns claiming the sales to be inter-State sales.

6. The question whether the sale made by a particular dealer using the blue coloured road permit, which is used for movement of the sale of goods outside the State, would be the conclusive determining factor whether the sale was inter-State sale, in spite of the claim of the dealer that the sale was intra-State sale, being the counter-sale, was under consideration before this Court in M/s. Prabhu Coke Manufacturing Company v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.{(W.P.(T) No. 2301 of 2019) decided on 26.11.2019}. In the said case, this Court has discussed the matter in detail and has found that though blue coloured road permits in Form XXVIII-B were meant for transportation of goods from within the State to outside the State, but after the bifurcation of the State in the year 2000, the State Government of Jharkhand, in its Department of Commercial Taxes, came out with a letter dated 10.01.2002, wherein it was clearly stated that unless the satisfaction about the inter-State sale on the four points detailed in the said letter is arrived, the transaction cannot be considered to be inter-State sale. This letter categorically indicated that only on the basis of the fact that in the sale / purchase invoices / cash memos, the purchasers had been shown to be outside the State, the transaction cannot be treated as inter-State sale, unless the satisfaction is arrived at after verifying the documents on the four points as detailed in the letter.

7. Though it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the re-assessment order was passed by the Assessing Authority after satisfying itself on the four points as detailed in the letter dated 10.01.2002, but the fact remains that the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner clearly shows that for his satisfaction, he had demanded from the petitioner dealer the cash books, ledger, sale memos, sales tax ledger, profit and loss accounts, income tax accounts, road permit register etc., but these documents were not produced by the petitioner before the joint Commissioner. In absence of these documents, the Joint Commissioner had to pass the order on the basis original returns filed by the petitioner showing those sales to be the inter-state sales, coupled with the blue coloured road permits used for transportation of goods from within the State to outside the State, for inter-State sales.

8. In the facts of this case, since the documents demanded by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes from the petitioner cannot be said to be the documents not relevant for the purpose of determination, and the petitioner had not produced those documents before the Joint Commissioner and also taking into consideration the fact that for non-production of these documents, the Joint Commissioner could not verify the four points as detailed in the letter dated 10.01.2002, we are of the considered view that one opportunity be given to the petitioner for satisfying the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad, that the sales in question were intra-State sales and not inter-State sales, even though the purchasers were shown to be outside the State. We accordingly, set aside the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Adm.), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, in case No. 46(4) 24/06-07, communicated under Memo No. 962 dated 11.10.2007 to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, and remand the matter for re-consideration afresh in light of letter dated 10.01.2002, issued by the State Government in its Department of Commercial Taxes. The documents called for by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes from the petitioner, shall be produced by the petitioner, for reconsideration whether the nature

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

of sales in question were inter-State sales or intra-State sales, as claimed by the petitioner. 9. We direct the petitioner to produce all those documents as mentioned in the order contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, and any further documents, if so required, before the respondent Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Adm.), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, within a period of two months from today, on the basis of which, the said respondent shall pass the order afresh, preferably within a further period of two months. In case the petitioner fails to produce those documents, within the aforesaid period of two months, the order as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application shall stand revived. 10. This writ application is accordingly, disposed of with the directions as above.
O R