IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT R A N C H I
----
W.P(T) NO. 489 of 2010
With
W.P(T) NO.491/2010
With
W.P(T) NO.499/2010
With
W.P(T) NO.517/2010
----
M/s. Tata Steel Limited. ..... Petitioner(in
all the cases).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand.
3. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes(Adminis-
tration) Hazaribagh Division, Hazaribagh.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh
Cricle, Ramgarh.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh
Circle, Ramgarh.
6. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh.
..... ..... Respondents(in all the cases).
----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
---
For the Petitioner: Mr.M.S.Mittal.
For the respondents: Mr.R.Krishna, Sr.S.C.I.
-----
03/25.02.2010
All these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner on the
sole ground that the petitioner although had paid the amount
accruing towards electricity duty for the year 2001-2002 in W.P(T)
NO.499/2010; for the year 2002-03 in W.P(T) NO. 517/2010; for the
year 2003-04 in W.P(T) NO.489/2010 and for the year 2004-05 in
W.P(T) NO.491/2010 the respondent no.4-Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle, Ramgarh started proceedings for
review of the payment which had already been deposited by the
petitioner and thereafter passed an order raising a demand by way
of difference which according to the respondent-authority should
have been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-authority
meaning thereby that the deficit amount which ought to have been
2.
deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-authority had not
been deposited.
The break-up of the difference has also been given out by the
petitioner which is Rs.73,44,415/- in W.P(T) NO.499/2010;
Rs.74,76,297/- in W.P(T) NO.517/2010; Rs.79,54,929/- in W.P(T)
NO.489/2010 and Rs.78,67,823/- in W.P(T) NO.491/2010.
The sole ground of challenge to this proceeding of review is
by placing reliance on sub-Section(4) of Section 9A of the Bihar
Electricity Act, 1948 wherein it has been laid down as follows:-
“Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any order
passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder maybe
reviewed by the authority passing it or by its successor-in-
office.”
Placing reliance on this provision it was submitted that
although the assessment of the electricity duty for the year referred
to hereinbefore had been made by the Commercial Taxes Officer,
Ramgrh Circle and the payment was also made by the petitioner as
per the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, the same was
reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes contrary
to the provisions referred to hereinbefore which envisages that the
review could be made by the authority assessing it or by its
successor- in- office which admittedly is the Commercial Taxes
Officer in all these matters. But the Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes overlooked and exceeded his jurisdiction by
initiating a review in regard to the payment of deficit amount which
according to the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes was
payable by way of electricity duty.
Thus it is clear that the only ground of challenge by the
petitioner is to assail the authority of the Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes who initiated review of the assessment proceeding
for electricity duty which ultimately was made by the Commercial
Taxes Officer and it could not be disputed that in so far as the
question of the authority or jurisdiction of review is concerned there
is no ambiguity or any legal impediment in reviewing the matter and
cannot be held to be without authority and the only ground of
challenge was regarding the competent authority who could initiate
the review proceeding.
3.
In view of the provision laid down in sub-Section(4) of Section
9A of the Electricity Act, it is clear that the review proceeding
could have been reopened but the counsel for the petitioner appears
to be correct to the extent that the same could have been done by
the assessing authority or by his successor-in-office but not by any
authority higher in rank than the assessing officer. This position was
difficult to be confronted even by the respondents and, therefore, we
thought it appropriate to accept the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the review proceeding at the most
could be done by the Commercial Taxes Officer.
In view of this short controversy raised by the counsel for the
petitioner in which we find no infirmity, we direct that all the review
petitions which are subject matter of challenge in all these four writ
petitions, shall be decided by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh
Circle, Ramgarh in regard to the payment of electricity duty who will
arrive at a conclusion whether the electricity duty charged earlier
was correct or any additional amount sought to be claimed by the
respondent-authority is sustainable. If that is done, the requirement
of sub-Section(4) of Section 9A of the Bihar Electricity Act obviously
will get addressed and in that view of the matter, the petitioner can
have no grievance.
Consequently, the demand notices which had been issued
by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ramgarh Circle
shall not be given effect to and shall be kept in abeyance. Although
counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to record an
observation to the effect that the petitioner should be allowed to
raise all contentions, we are of the view that this clearly would be a
superfluous exercise as it clearly implies that the reviewing authority
which is Commercial Tax Officer will obviously grant liberty to the
petitioner to raise all contentions in regard to the review which have
been reopened.
Since the matter in effect is practically remitted to the
Commercial Taxes Officer from the Deputy Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes, we are of the view that no fresh notice is
required to be issued to the petitioner in regard to the review
proceeding as this Court has merely accepted the contention that the
Commercial Taxes Officer would have been the appropriate authority
to entertain the review petition. Under the facts and circumstance of
the case, we are of the view that a fresh notice is not required to be
4.
served to the petitioner except communicating the date on which
review would be heard by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh
Circle, Ramgarh.
Since the matter has been remanded by the Court to
the Commercial Taxes Officer, Ramgarh Circle question of a fresh
sanction from the higher authority to the Commercial Taxes Officer is
not required and this part of the contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that a fresh sanction is required from the Deputy
Commissioner, Commercial Taxes is clearly unreasonable and
unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of the above observations and directions all the
writ petitions be treated as disposed of.
(Gyan Sudha Misra,C.J.)
( R.R.Prasad, J )
Biswas