M/s Auto Profiles Limited v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of as infructuous
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan --- For the Petitioner For the State For the Resp. Nos.7 & 8 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G.-II : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Adv. --- 08/19.07.2022 Writ petition was preferred for the following reliefs :- “a. b. For a declaration that the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 42 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 inserted in the said Act by Jharkhand Ordinance No.2 of 2011 i.e. Jharkhand Value Added Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011 (Annexure-1) by section 16 thereof published in the Official Gazette on 1.10.2011 and also by Jharkhand Act 22, 2011 i.e. Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act (Amendment) Act, 2011 (Annexure-1/1) by section 16 thereof is arbitrary, discriminatory, oppressive, confiscatory, unreasonable and invalid being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), chapter V of the Constitution of India read with Comptroller and Auditor-General’s (Duties, Powers & etc.) Act, 1971 and also beyond the legislative competence of the state of Jharkhand and as such the same is unconstitutional and Ultra vires and therefore not sustainable.
For a further declaration that the Notification No.S.O.1 dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in the purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (iii) of Section 1 of said Jharkhand Ordinance No.2 of 2011 giving retrospective effect from 01.04.2006 to said sub-section (3) of Section 42 inserted by the said Ordinance is Ultra vires to the said Ordinance including section 1(iii) thereof in so far (c) -2- as it gives such retrospective effect because power of giving retrospective effect to the provisions of the said Ordinance has not been conferred by the legislature upon the delegate i.e. state Government under said section 1(iii) of the said Ordinance and in absence of the same, the delegate i.e. the State Government cannot give retrospective effect to any of the provisions of the said Ordinance including 16 thereof by which said sub-section (3) of Section 42 of the Act has been inserted.
For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of declaration that comptroller and auditor general of India who is a constitutional authority under chapter V of the constitution of India has no jurisdiction or authority under the constitution or under any law framed by the parliament to pronounce on law or have judicial supervision over the quasi judicial acts of the authorities under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and further declare that the audit party of comptroller and auditor general perform essential administrative or executive functions and accordingly conferment of power under section 42(3) of Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 upon the comptroller and auditor general to pronounce on law and also exercise judicial supervision over the quasi judicial acts of the authorities under the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 is wholly without jurisdiction and hence void ab initio.” Further amendments were carried out.
Operative part
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the objection made by the CAG under Section 42(3) of the JVAT Act, the matter has been looked into by the assessing authority and the reassessment proceedings have been dropped vide the order at Annexure-5 to the rejoinder affidavit. She further submits by referring to Annexure-5 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Adityapur Circle, Jamshedpur that no error in computing the tax as pointed out by the learned CAG, has been found during the assessment proceeding. She therefore seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. Shamim/ (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Deepak Roshan, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 — ss. 42, 42(3); Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act; Amendment Act, 2011; Constitution of India.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.