(A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. of 2022 [Arising from SLP(C) No. 29127 of 2019], decided on March 14, 2022
Tata Teleservices Limited ___________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Chhattisgarh and Others ____________________ Respondent(s).
With
Civil Appeal No. of 2022
(Arising from SLP(C) No. 29180 of 2019)
Civil Appeal No. of 2022
(Arising from SLP(C) No. 29795 of 2019)
Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising from SLP(C) No. 29127 of 2019); Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising from SLP(C) No. 29180 of 2019); and Civil Appeal No. of 2022 (Arising from SLP(C) No. 29795 of 2019)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal Nos. 687, 691 and 705 of 2018 respectively, reversing the decision of the Single Judge, who amongst others, held that in the facts of the present case, the reassessment was possible only under Section 21(3) of the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 within one calendar year from the concerned year and resultantly the impugned order of reassessment has been passed without authority of law.
3. The Division Bench, however, was of the view that the issue raised by the appellant is essentially one of maintainability of the proceedings and should have been raised at the threshold at notice stage itself and not after the assessment order was passed.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, there is no manner of doubt that the appellants had specifically raised preliminary objection before the assessing officer that the proposed action had become time-barred and hence notice under Section 21(7) of the VAT Act issued to the appellant(s) by the authority was illegal and unjust being void ab initio.
5. The assessment order passed by the competent authority, however, does not deal with this contention at all. That grievance had been made by way of writ petition, as the issue of limitation would go to the root of the matter being bordering on jurisdiction and authority of the officer concerned. The Single Judge accepted the said grievance of the appellant(s), as can be discerned from the observations in paragraph 34 of the judgment and answered the same in favour of the appellant(s).
6. The Division Bench, however, was of the opinion that the appellant(s) ought to take recourse to statutory remedy of appeal and the Single Judge should not have examined the matter any further. We disagree with the said view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
7. As the issue regarding limitation goes to the root of the matter, it could be taken as preliminary objection before the competent authority and the competent authority was under obligation to answer the same one way or the other. That being the grievance in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge justly addressed the said objection and answered it in favour of the appellants. Whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the said contention is tenable or otherwise ought to have been examined by the Division Bench on its own merits.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and relegate the parties before the Division Bench of the High Court for reconsideration of the restored/remanded writ appeal(s) on its own merits and in accordance with law.
9. All contentions available to both sides are left open.
10. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion either way on the merits of the issues to be dealt with in the remanded writ appeal(s).
11. The parties to appear before the High Court on 18.04.2022, when the High Court may proceed to hear the remanded writ appeal(s) on that day or assign a suitable date for disposing of the same expeditiously.
12. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 29127/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-10-2019 in WA No. 687/2018 passed by the High Court Of Chhatisgarh At Bilaspur)
M/s. TATA Teleservices Limited.….Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.….Respondent(s)
IA No. 14589/2021 – EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
IA No. 189472/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 192101/2019 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 29180/2019 (IV-C)
(FOR
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 189884/2019
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 189886/2019
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 192801/2019
FOR EARLY HEARING APPLICATION ON IA 14597/2021
IA No. 14597/2021 – EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
IA No. 189886/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 189884/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 192801/2019 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP(C) No. 29795/2019 (IV-C)
(IA
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 192885/2019
FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 192887/2019
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 193090/2019
FOR EARLY HEARING APPLICATION ON IA 14594/2021
IA No. 14594/2021 – EARLY HEARING APPLICATION
IA No. 192887/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 192885/2019 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 193090/2019 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 14-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tarun Gulati, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Advocate
Mr. Vinayak Mathur, Advocate
Ms. Anishka Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Jain, Advocate, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sourav Roy, Dy. A.G. For Chhattisgarh
Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Standing Counsel For Chhattisgarh
Mr. Prabudh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Nikhilesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Devika Khanna, Advocate
Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Advocate
Mr. Vmz Chambers, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
14. Leave granted.
15. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
