M/S Il And Fs Township And Urban Assets Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3/Assessing Authority and also for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority/Respondent No. 4 by which a tax of Rs. 3,06,83,717.90/- has been imposed and DRC-07 was issued. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was registered under service tax before coming into 2/4 force the GST regime and after coming into force of GST regime, the petitioner was given GSTIN No. 10AAACM3998C1ZS. The petitioner was not registered under VAT Act at any point of time. The respondent/department has also accepted this fact before this court that the petitioner was not registered with the VAT. The assessing authority issued DRC-01 on 27.09.2023 requiring the petitioner to submit reply to the show cause for the period 2017-18 and a demand of Rs. 3,06,83,717.90/- was raised. The petitioner submitted his reply and stated that the demand raised by respondent is on the turnover related to service tax period i.e., April 2017 to June 2017 and the petitioner has already filed service tax return and tax was paid as per the return i.e., ST-03. Respondent no. 3/Assessing Authority, by impugned order dated 24.11.2023, imposed tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner.

It has further been submitted that respondent no. 3 failed to consider the entire turnover, disclosed by the petitioner in Paragraph 5G of GSTR-9C, which was of Service Tax period and not VAT Act and the assessing authority insisted for filing VAT return and failed to consider the Service Tax return. It has also been submitted that respondent no. 3 had no juri iction to make any assessment for the period April 2017 to June 2017 3/4 after coming into force the GST Act. The Assessing Authority repeatedly asked the petitioner to comply with its order for filing RT-3 under the VAT Act for the period in question, but it was impossible for the petitioner to comply with the direction in view of the fact that the petitioner was never registered under the VAT Act.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner against the order passed by the Assessing Authority filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has found that the appeal was delayed to the extent of ten months and five days. It has also been submitted that it is true that petitioner was not registered under the VAT Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner was never registered under the VAT Act. Insofar as service tax is concerned, it is also admitted that the service tax return was filed by the petitioner and that has been taken note of by the Assessing Officer. Since imposition of tax goes to the root of the matter inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be assessed against the liability of VAT Act when it was not registered under the VAT 4/4 regime and it was impossible for the petitioner to file final return under the VAT Act RT-3. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Respondent No. 3/Assessing Authority and order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Respondent No.4/Appellate Authority.

Accordingly, the present writ application is allowed.