2025:JHHC:20761-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 5801 of 2024 TATA STEEL LIMITED (A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956/2013), having its registered office at Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001; having its Manufacturing Unit at Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum through its Chief Legal Counsel (Indirect Taxation) namely, Vikash Mittal, aged about 53 years, son of Shri H.K. Mittal, resident of 26, Kaiser Bungalow, Inner Circle Road, C.H. Area, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN-831001, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes/State Taxes Department, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, PIN-834004. 2. Additional Commissioner of State Taxes/Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Jamshedpur Division, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum. 3. Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes (Urban Circle), Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate Mrs. Shilpi Sandil, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate Ms. Sanya Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Addl. A.G.-III Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III --------- 05/Dated: 28.07.2025 Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.(Oral) 1. Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including Writ of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside 2025:JHHC:20761-DB order bearing no. 356 dated 05.10.2024 [Annexure-15], pertaining to the Assessment Period 2013-14, wherein Respondent No. 3 has declared that the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner for assessment under Section 11(5) of the Jharkhand Entry Tax on Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2011 is not barred by limitation by relying upon the provisions of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the very initiation and continuance of proceedings under the provisions of the Jharkhand Entry Tax on Consumption or Use of Goods Act, 2011 against the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is barred by limitation and is, thus, void ab initio. 3. In the earlier round of litigation between the same parties, this Court passed a detailed judgment dated 21.02.2023 in W.P. (T) No.1953 of 2021 and analogous cases running into as many as 19 pages which was precisely devoted to considering the issue of limitation as raised by the petitioner herein. For better appreciation, it will be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 20 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “20. Since the issue of limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction of the assessing authority to initiate the proceedings, as such contradictory stands by the respondents in the assessment proceedings and at different stages of the present writ proceedings do give rise to contradiction as to the actual date of 2025:JHHC:20761-DB commencement of the period of limitation under Section 11(5) of the Entry Tax Act, 2011 for the purposes of initiating the proceedings against the petitioner who was an unregistered assessee. The vires of the Entry Tax Act, 2011 was struck down by the judgment dated 3rd April 2012 rendered in W.P.(T) No.5696 of 2011 in the case of the petitioner and several others. Civil Appeal No.8275/2012 preferred by the State was decided vide judgment dated 22nd March 2017 that means the Act of 2011 was revived on the statute book from that date. The present assessment proceedings pertains to assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and as such the date of commencement of the limitation period under Section 11(5) of the Act is crucial for the purposes of initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner. Petitioner has in the grounds of challenge before this Court taken a specific plea that the proceedings were barred by limitation being beyond the two years period from the date of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8275/2012 i.e. 22nd March 2017 since the show-cause notice was issued on 10th May 2019 i.e. after two years. As observed herein above, even for the period 2017-18 (01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017) the Assessing Officer has reckoned the period of limitation as starting from 09.10.2017 the date of judgment in Father William Fernandes (supra) which does not apply to the present proceedings under the 2011 Act. As noticed above, the respondents have been taking shifting and contradictory stands from time to time. Therefore, since the very issue of commencement of limitation for initiation 2025:JHHC:20761-DB of proceedings under Section 11(5) having come under a cloud which goes to the root of jurisdiction of the assessing officer to initiate such proceedings, it would be proper to remand the matter to the assessing officer to take a fresh decision in accordance with law including on the issue of limitation for initiation of proceedings. Since the matter is being remanded for the above reasons, we consciously refrain from making any comments on the merits of the case or on the question of ante-dating of the order passed on the preliminary objection.” 4. It was thereafter that the writ applications filed by the petitioner were allowed and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority for deciding the issue of limitation after quashing the assessment orders dated 01.12.2020 and 02.12.2020. However, the competent authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent, vide the impugned order dated 05.10.2024, in the most rash and brazen manner, without even considering the observation made by this Court, proceeded to pass the following orders:- “dk;kZy;] jkT;&dj la;qDr vk;qDr] ukxjh; vapy] te’ksniqj la[;k & 356 fnukad & 05/10/24 lsok esa] loZJh VkVk LVhy fy0] fc"Vqiqj] te’ksniqjA TIN – 20251001839 Period – 2013-14 egksn;] izos’k dj vf/kfu;e 2011 dh /kkjk 14 ftlds vuqlkj “Except a proceeding under sub-section (5) of section 11 and sub-section (1) and (2) of section 13, no proceeding for assessment of the tax payable by an assessee under this Act in respect of any period 2025:JHHC:20761-DB shall be initiated and completed except before the expiry of two years from the expiry of such period. Provided that a proceeding for re-assessment in pursuance of or as a result of an order on appeal, revision and reference or review shall be initiated and completed before the expiry of two years from the date of communication of such order to the assessing authority.” Period of limitation of completion of assessment proceedings dks ifjHkkf"kr fd;k x;k gSA blesa /kkjk 11(5) ,oa 13(1), 13(2) dks NksM+dj nks o"kZ dh le;&lhek ifjHkkf"kr gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa O;olk;h dk dkyckf/kr gksus dk nkok dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA O;olk;h dks iqu% ,d vafre volj nsrs gq, fnukad 24/10/24 dks lquok;h fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd mDr frfFk dks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa leLr ys[kkiqLr ds lkFk iwokZgu 11:00 cts mifLFkr gksosaA foQy jgus ij ,d i{kh; vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k tk,xkA g0/- jkT;&dj mik;qDr] ukxjh; vapy] te’ksniqjA" 5. To say the least, the manner in which the order has been passed leaves much to describe. It was incumbent upon the competent authority, i.e. 3rd respondent, to have determined the issue of limitation strictly in accordance with the observations made by this Court and not by simply quoting Section 14 which otherwise has no applicability with the facts of the instant case. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to quash the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 and remand the same for decision afresh to the 3rd respondent. 7. Looking to the nature of the lis, we direct the 3rd respondent to decide the lis as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31st December 2025. 2025:JHHC:20761-DB 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 9. All pending Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) N.A.F.R. Manoj/Pramanik/Cp.2