M.Y. Eqbal, Acting C.J.
1. The instant writ petition has been listed for hearing after the matter was remitted back by the Supreme Court in terms of order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3188 of 2007.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of re-assessment dated 5/5/2006 passed under Sections 17(3) and 19 of the Bihar Finance Act. The writ petition was dismissed by this Bench on 27/11/2006 holding that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the assessment order as provided under the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to this court with observation that the question of vires of the provision of the Act and the Rules cannot be gone into by the Authority under the Act. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is reproduced herein below:
In our view the question of vires of provisions of the Act or the Rule cannot be gone into by the Authority under the Act and on this account the High Court could not have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy. Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and he case is remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. In case, the High Court comes to the conclusion at the preliminary stage that the point regarding vires of Rules 13A is already concluded by a judgment of this Court then, the High Court shall be at liberty to pass the order accordingly.
3. Besides challenging the re-assessment order dated 5/5/2006 for the period, 1999-2000, the petitioner also challenged the vires of Rule 13A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 as amended by notification dated 01.2.2000 and also Section 21(1)(a)(1) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 on the ground, inter alia, that such provisions are unworkable and ultra vires in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley v. State of Rajasthan 1988 STC 204 as well as the judgment passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 134 STC 354.
4. The petitioner is a registered company having its activities almost in all the States including the State of Jharkhand. It carries on the business of manufacturing, trading, leasing and execution of work contracts. For the purpose of execution of work contracts by its construction division, the petitioner got itself registered under the Jamshedpur Urban Circle, Jamshedpur both under the Central Sales Tax and the Bihar Finance Act. The petitioner among various contract execution for different awardees, secured an order from M/s. Nisso Awai Corporation, a Japanese company. The petitioner is a sub-contractor engaged in execution of contract. Petitioner's case is that it has been filing returns both under the Bihar Finance Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act in the Jamshedpur Urban Circle and the assessment order for the years 1999-2000 was duly passed in 2003. Pursuant to the order of assessment passed for the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was served with a demand notice for excess payment dated 25.4.2003. On account of certain error apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner filed review application under Section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act and accordingly, order of review was passed. However, after expiry of two years, the petitioner was surprisingly served with a notice purported to be under Section 17(2) read with Section 19(1) of the Act whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes with the entire record on the ground that the authority came to know that there has been less assessment of tax for the said period. The petitioner was again served with another notice dated 27.5.2005 pursuant to which it appeared. Another demand notice dated 18.2.2005 was also served by the respondents alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner has suppressed relevant materials which were used by it during execution of work contract and thereby the petitioner was asked to file show cause and produce the entire records. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted show cause and the Authority, after considering the show cause, passed the impugned order under Sections 17(3), 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Bihar Finance Act raising a demand of Rs. 3,42,52,151=00.
5. In exercise of power conferred under Section 48 of the Bihar Finance Act 1981, Bihar Sales Tax Rules 1983 was framed which was notified vide Notification No. S.O. 1 dated 2/1/1984. Rule 13 of the said Rule lays down the provisions with regard to claims for payment of tax at special rate. According to this provisions, a dealer who claims that any amount of his turnover should be assessed to tax at the rate provided in Section 13 shall substantiate such claim before the authority prescribed in Rule 18 by producing the purchase order, if any, and duplicate copies of the cash memoranda or bills prescribed in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 and true declaration in writing in form IX obtained from the prescribed authority or IXA or IXB, as the case may be, by the purchaser that the goods which are the subject of sale are specified in the certificate of the purchaser.
6. A new Rule 13A was framed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Act and was inserted by Notification No. S.O. 1142 dated 8th October, 1986. Rule 13A as inserted in 1986, is quoted herein below:
13-A Deduction in case of works contract on account of labour charges- Deduction under Sub-clause (i) of clause of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 on account of labour charges in case of works contract from gross Turnover shall be equal to the following:
Percentage
Percent
(1)
(a)
Earthwork in all types of soiland in all works on canals, roads, embankments, small dams etc. by manuallabour; and exclusive labour rate contracts.
100
(b)
Earthwork in all types of soilin all work on canals, roads, embankment, (Sic) machines.
20
(c)
Construction of earth damswith earth moving machines.
25
(2)
(a)
Construction ofmasonry/concrete dams barrages, bridges of more than 15 metres length, watertowers and P.H.E.D. installations and lift irrigation installations, etc.
30
(b)
Stone masonry in dams andother such works
35
(3)
Construction of canalstructures, bridges up to 15 metres length, all types of buildings and liningof canals.
30
(4)
(a)
Construction of pucca roads(excluding earthwork)
(b)
Construction of pucca roads(including earthwork information of new roads.
25
(5)
River training and floodprotection work involving boulder and brick pitching (excluding earthwork).
40
(6)
In the case of electricalcontracts.
20
(7)
In the case of structuralcontracts.
30
(8)
In the case of sanitarycontracts.
331/3
(9)
In the case of retreadingcontracts.
50
(10)
In the case of textile dyeingand printing works contracts.
50
(11)
In the case of photography andprinting contracts.
30
(12)
In the case of sculpturalcontract or contracts relating to arts.
70
(13)
In the case of refrigeration,air conditioning or other machinery, rolling shutters, cranes, instillationcontracts
15
(14)
In the case of othercontracts.
30
7. However, the said Rule was struck down by the Patna High Court in the case of Jamshedpur Contractors' Association v. State of Bihar (1989) 75 STC-132 on the ground that said Rule provides for levy of tax, particularly when claim of contractor for deduction under this Rule is restricted to the purchase prescribed even if he had spent more on such charges.
8. Consequent, thereupon, a new rule, Rule 13A was substituted in place of earlier rule vide notification No. SO. 43 dated 1st February, 2000. The substituted Rule 13A is quoted herein below:
Percentage
Percent
(1)
(a)
Earthwork in all types of soiland in all works on canals, roads, embankments, small dams etc. by manuallabour; and exclusive labour rate contracts.
100
(b)
E arthwork in all types ofsoil in all works on
20
canals, roads, embankment,dams (Sic) Machines.
(Sic)
(c)
Construction of earth damswith earth moving machines.
25
(2)
(a)
Construction ofmasonry/concrete dams, barrages, bridges of more than 15 metres length, watertowers and P.H.E.D. installations and lift irrigation installations, etc.
30
(b)
Stone masonry in dams andother such works
35
(3)
Construction of canalstructures, bridges upto 15 metres length, all types of buildings and liningof canals.
30
(4)
(a)
Construction of pucca roads(excluding earthwork)
15
(b)
Construction of pucca roads(including earthwork information of new roads.
25
(5)
River training and floodprotection work involving boulder and brick pitching (excluding earthwork).
40
(6)
In the case of electricalcontracts.
20
(7)
In the case of structuralcontracts.
30
(8)
In the case of sanitarycontracts.
331/3
(9)
In the case of retreadingcontracts.
50
(10)
In the case of textile dyeingand printing works contracts.
50
(11)
In the case of photography andprinting contracts.
30
(12)
In the case of sculpturalcontract or contracts relating to arts.
70
(13)
In the case of refrigeration,air conditioning or other machinery, rolling shutters, cranes, installationcontracts
15
(14)
In the case of othercontracts.
30
9. The assessment order passed against the assessee in respect of works contract by applying Rule 13A was challenged before the Patna High Court in the case of 'Larsen and Toubro v. State of Bihar' {2004} 134 STC 354. In that case the fact was that petitioner executed a works contract and submitted return. In response to the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Authority, petitioner produced their metes and bonds and other details to finalize assessment for the period 2000-01. The order of assessment was passed on 7th January, 2002. The said order was challenged on the ground inter alia that the manner and extent of deduction as contemplated under Section 21(1)(a)(i) has not been provided. The said case was registered by the department on the ground that deductions were made as per the amended Rule 13A of the Sales Tax Rules as amended in February 2000. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court set aside the assessment order holding that Rule 13A of the Rules as amended in 2000 was not workable because the manner and extent of deduction relating to any other charges has not been provided. The Bench observed:
21. The word 'prescribed' according to the Clause (r) of Section 2 of the Act means prescribed by Rules made under the Act. When the Stale Legislature says that something is to be done in accordance with law then that is to be done in that manner and as prescribed and not otherwise. When the State Legislature says that the word 'prescribed' means prescribed by the Rules then whatever is to be prescribed for making each and every section or any section of the Act workable must be prescribed under the Rules. According to Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1), the deductions must be in relation to the amount of labour and any other charges (emphasis supplied). The labour is altogether a different thing and the labour charges are different to any other charges. One cannot confuse himself with the labour charges and other charges. When the Legislature itself has provided different categories-one as labour charges and the other general category as other charges then the State Legislature is obliged to go for a follow-up legislation by prescribing manner and the extent of deductions in relation to any other charges.
22. Rule 13A of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 provides that if the dealer fails to product any account or the account produced are unreliable deduction under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub section (1) of Section 21 on account of labour in case of works contract from gross turnover shall be equal to the percentage prescribed in Rule 13A in respect of different types of works contract. Rule 13A simply provides an alternative mode of assessment. It does not prescribe that in what manner and to what extent the labour charges would be deducted from the gross turnover to reach to a taxable turnover.
23. Rule 13A unfortunately does not talk 'any other charges'. Rule 13A unfortunately does not take into consideration that under the Rules the deduction in relation to any other charges in the manner and to the extent were also to be prescribed. Rule 13A cannot be said to be an absolute follow-up legislation to Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1). When the law provides that something is to be prescribed in the Rules then that thing must be prescribed in the Rules to make the provisions workable and constitutionally valid. In the matter of Gannon Dunkerley & C. [1993] 88 STC 204 the Supreme Court observed that as Sub-section (3) of Section 5 and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Rules were not providing for particular deductions the same were invalid. In the present matter the constitutional provision of law says that particular deductions would be provided but unfortunately nothing is provided in relation to the other charges either in Section 21 itself or in the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58 of the Bihar Finance Act.
31. In our considered opinion, Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1) read with Rule 13A of the Rules did not make Sub-clause (1) fully workable because the manner and extent of deduction relating to any other charges has not been provided/prescribed by the State.
However, the Bench further observed:
33. It is, however, made clear that the liability of the dealer shall survive and continue and he would be liable to be taxed after the provisions are made workable.
10. The aforementioned Rule 13A as amended in 2000 again came for consideration before a bench of this Court in the case of Voltas Limited v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 5 VST-492. In that case also, vires of Rules 13A of the Sales Tax Rules 1983 as amended in 2000 was challenged. The Division Bench of this Court following the decision rendered in Larsen & Toubro Case (Supra) held as under:
21. Amended Section 21(1) and newly substituted Rule 13A recently fell for consideration before a Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar 134 STC Page-354. Having noticed the newly substituted Rule 13A, the Patna High Court held that the said Rule does not subscribe that in what manner and to what extent labour charges could be deducted from the gross turnover to reach a taxable turnover and made the following observations:
23. Rule 13A unfortunately does not talk 'any other charges'. Rule 13A unfortunately does not take into consideration that under the Rules the deductions in relation to any other charges in the manner and to the extent were also to be prescribed. Rule 13A cannot be said to be en absolute follow-up legislation to Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1). When the law provides that something is to be prescribed in the Rules then that thing must be prescribed in the Rules to make the provisions workable and constitutionally valid. In the matter of Gannon Dunkerley & C. [1993] 88 STC 204 the Supreme Court observed that as Sub-section (3) of Section 5 and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Rules were not providing for particular deductions the same were invalid. In the present matter the constitutional provision of law says that particular deductions would be provided but unfortunately nothing is provided in relation to the other charges either in Section 21 itself or in the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58 of the Bihar Finance Act.
Xx xx xx xx xx xx xx31. In our considered opinion Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1) read with Rule 13A of the Rules did not make Sub-clause (1) fully workable because the manner and extent of deduction relating to any other charges has not been provided/prescribed by the State.
22. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the Patna High Court's decision rendered in the case of 'Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar' (Supra) is not binding on this Court. Though the submission is attractive, but we are of the view that the judgment, rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of 'Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar' (Supra), cannot be ignored, the provision in question, i.e. Section 21(1)9a0(i) read with Rules 13A, in pursuance of which the impugned assessment has been made, has been held to be not workable, as the manner and extent of deduction relating to any other charges has not been provided prescribed by the State.
11. The decision rendered by this Court in Voltas Ltd. Case (Supra), was challenged by the State of before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after considering the decision of the Patna High Court held as under:
Interpretation of the amended Section 21(1) and the newly substituted Rule 13-A fell for consideration of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Bihar. The Patna High Court in the said decision observed as under:
Rule 13-A unfortunately does not talk of 'any other charges'. Rule 13-A unfortunately does not take into consideration that under the Rules the deduction in relation to any other charges in the manner and to the extent were also to be prescribed. Rule 13-A cannot be said to be an absolute follow-up legislation to Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1). When the law provides that something is to be prescribed in the Rules then that thing must be prescribed in the Rules to make the provisions workable and constitutionally valid. In Gannon Dunkerley & Co. the Supreme Court observed that as Sub-section (3) of Section 5 and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Rules were not providing for particular deductions, the same were invalid. In the present matter the constitutional provision of law says that particular deductions would be provided but unfortunately nothing is provided in relation to the other charges either in Section 21 itself or in the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58 of the Bihar Finance Act.
* * *In our considered opinion Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1) read with Rule 13-A of the Rules did not make Sub-clause (1) fully workable because the manner and extent of deduction relating to any other charges has not been provided/prescribed by the State.
We fully agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid decision. It is not merely the labour charges which are deductible from the value of the works contract, but all other charges/amounts also, except the value of the goods sold in execution of the works contract. This is because only the value of the goods sold can be taxed as sales tax. It may be mentioned that the respondent had initially only claimed deduction of labour charges, but that was in view of the understanding of the law at that time. The matter became clear only after the decision of this Court in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan.
It may further be mentioned that the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court about the rate of tax were unnecessary, and they are therefore set aside which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
12. Consequent thereupon Rule 13A was again amended vide notification No. SO 2000 dated 24th March 2006. The amendments made therein reads as under:
I. In the said Rule 13-A, the existing provision shall be numbered as Sub-rule (2) and before this, a new sub-rule shall be inserted called as Sub-rule (1).
Sub-rule (1)--The amount of labour and other similar charges, for the deduction thereof from the gross turnover of the contract for the purpose of determining the taxable turnover under Sub-section (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21, for the goods transferred, in course of the execution of works contract, in the same form or in any other form shall be as under:
(a) labour charges for execution of the works;
(b) (b) Amount paid to a sub-contractor for labour and services;
(c) Charges for planning, designing and architect's fees;
(d) Cost of consumables such as water, electricity, fuel, etc. used in the execution of the works contract the property in which is not transferred in the course of execution of a works contract; and
(e) Charges for obtaining on hire of otherwise machinery and tools used for the execution of the works contract;
(f) Cost of establishment of the contractor to the extent it is relatable to supply of labour and services;
(g) Other similar expenses related to supply of labour and services;
(h) Profit earned by the contractor to the extent it is relatable to supply of labour and services.
The amounts deductible under the aforesaid heads of charges/expenses will have to be determined, in the light of the facts of particular case(s), on the basis of the accounts/material produced by the contractor.
2. It shall come into force with effect from the date of its publication in the official Gazette.
13. At the very outset, I must indicate in the writ petition, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of Rule 13A as amended by notification dated 24th March, 2006. It appears that by the amended Rule 13A of 2006, the defect and lacuna in the earlier Rule 13A of 2006 alleged to have been removed in order to make it workable. The impugned order of reassessment has been passed by noticing the amended Rule 13A of 2006.
14. While remitting this matter to this Court, the Supreme Court categorically observed that if the High Court comes to the conclusion at the preliminary stage that the point regarding vires of Rule 13A is already concluded by the judgment of this Court, then the High Court shall be at liberty to pass order accordingly.
There is no dispute that Rule 13A of the Rules as amended by notification dated 1st February, 2000 was declared unworkable in Larsen & Toubro's case, 134 STC 345, and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The vires of Rule 13A as amended in 2000 was therefore concluded by the aforesaid judgment.
15. After the aforementioned judgment, Rule 13A was amended by making it workable vide notification dated 24th March, 2006. From perusal of the impugned reassessment order, it appears that the Authorities proceeded to determine the liability of the petitioner by applying Rule 13A. Knowing fully well that the impugned reassessment order was passed by referring amended Rule 13A of 2006, curiously enough the petitioner has not challenged the vires of new Rule 13A as not workable.
16. In the counter affidavit, the specific case of the respondents is that in the year 1999-2000, the petitioner Company filed its returns showing its gross turnover of Rs. 37,93,29,948/- taxable turnover of Rs. 6,35,00,778/- and admitted tax of Rs. 48,83,808/-. During the course of hearing of the said period, the petitioner-Company filed a revised returns much after the expiry of the prescribed date of filing the revised returns for 1999-2000, i.e. 31.7.2001 in which it revised downwards its G.T.O. to Rs. 34,99,43,827/- and its T.T.O. to Rs. 4,61,01,013/- lower by Rs. 2,93,86,121/- and Rs. 1,73,96,765/- respectively than the original returns. The assessment was completed on the basis of the revised returns and its gross turnover was determined at Rs. 34,99,43,827/- and tax was assessed under Section 17(2) and subsequently under Section 47 of the Act at Rs. 50,38,081.70 and consequently the petitioner was refunded Rs. 8,22,004/-. Further case of the respondents is that during the aforesaid period, the petitioner-Company had done works contract in two capacities. Firstly, as the main contractor of Tata Steel Ltd. and secondly, as a sub-contractor of a Japan based company, namely, M/s. Nissho Iwai Corporation, who was awarded a contract by M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. M/s. Nissho Iwai Corporation did the design and drawing work itself but awarded the sub-contract to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 19,68,65,972/-. The said Japanese company was assessed for the period 1999-2000 in Jamshedpur Circle, where it claimed a deduction of Rs. 19,68,65,972/- from its gross turnover, because for the same amount it had awarded a sub-contractor to the petitioner. But its claim was partly rejected by the Assessing Authority on the ground that the petitioner had not shown the full amount in its returns and had not paid tax on the turnover of Rs. 5,39,10,466/-. The respondents have further stated that aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Company moved in appeal and the appellate Court in its order dated 11.1.2005 held that Nissho Iwai Corporation Ltd cannot be held responsible for tax evasion by its sub-contractor L&T; Ltd (the petitioner) and tax cannot be levied on Nissho Iwai Corporation for the suppressed turnover of Rs. 5,39,10,466.64 by the petitioner.
17. Further case of the respondents is that when the information about suppression of TTO of Rs. 5,39,10,406.64 came to light by the order of the appellate Court, the respondents called for information from M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. and M/s. Nissho Iwai Corporation about the works contract done by the petitioner-Company and M/s. Tata Steel Ltd vide its letter dated 20.5.2005 informed the respondents that bill value for 1999-2000 of the petitioner on Tata Steel Ltd was as follows:
Material Content : Rs. 3,53,04,148.04 (Taxable turnover)Labour Content : Rs. 15,16,08,615.25 (Tax free)Total: Rs. 18,69,38,96.12
As sub-contractor of M/s. Nissho Iwai Corporation, the petitioner had the following turnover:
Material Value : Rs. 9,70,98,581.44 (Taxable turnover)Labour Content : Rs. 10,79,95,252.33 (Tax free)Total: Rs. 20,50,94,106.77
18. Further case of the respondents is that after adding the aforesaid two total figures, the bill value (G.T.O.) comes to Rs. 39,20,33,093/- and material value (T.T.O.) comes to Rs. 13,24,02,729/-, whereas the petitioner in its returns had shown G.T.O. of Rs. 34,99,43,827/- and T.T.O. of Rs. 4,79,45,547,57 thus, suppressing the G.T.O. of Rs. 4,20,89,266/- and T.T.O. of Rs. 8,44,57,181.43 in its revised returns and on the basis of these revised returns, its assessment was originally completed. On this ground, the assessment proceeding was reopened and a proceeding under Section 19 of the Act was initiated in accordance with law and Rules. The petitioner afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing and to produce books of accounts, but the petitioner having failed to do so, the respondents determined the turnover strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Act and T.T.O. was assessed on the basis of sound principles of law. The respondents have, therefore, stated that in the writ petition, the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has concealed the facts with a sole intention to evade tax. It is also stated that the petitioner has not moved the appellate authority intentionally because it knew that in the appellate Court, M/s. Nissho Iwai Corporation had earlier given evidence that its sub-contractor, the petitioner, had not paid tax on Rs. 5,39,10,466.64 and had argued that it cannot be taxed for the offence committed by its sub-contractor. Therefore, the re-assessment order under Section 19(1) has been passed after the notification dated 24.3.2006 in which deductions for other charges were also allowed in the best judgment assessment while arriving at T.T.O under Section 19(1) of the Act. When the original assessment made under Section 17(2) of the Act was valid and deductions were allowed under Section 21(1) and Rule 13A were valid, then the reassessment made under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be said to invalid. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that Rule 13A is not workable, has been denied in view of the judgment of the Patna High Court reported in 75 STC 132.
19. Reply to the counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner, but curiously enough most of the facts stated in the counter affidavit has not been specifically denied. Prima fade, therefore, it is evidently clear that impugned reassessment order was passed when it came to the notice of the Assessing Authority that there had been suppression of contract awarded to the petitioner as sub-contractor for the value of Rs. 19,68,65,972/-. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and it was only after the petitioner failed to establish that there had not been suppression of contract awarded by M/s. Nisso Awai Corporation for the aforesaid amount, the impugned order of reassessment has been passed.
20. As noticed above, impugned reassessment order was passed after amended Rule 13A (as amended on 24th March, 2006) which has not been challenged as not workable. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order on the ground that old Rule 13A (as amended in 2000) was declared not workable.
22. In Larson & Toubro's case, the Patna High Court while declaring Rule 13A as amended in 2006, as not workable, held as under:
31. In our considered opinion, Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 21(1) read with Rule 13A of the Rules did not make Sub-clause (1) fully workable because the manner and extent of deduction relating to any other charges has not been provided/prescribed by the State.
32. The assessment orders in view of the discussions aforesaid cannot be allowed to stand. The same deserve to and are accordingly quashed. Consequently neither recovery proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners nor any coercive action can be taken against them.
33. It is, however, made clear that the liability of the dealer shall survive and continue and he would be liable to be taxed after the provisions are made workable.
22. In Voltas's case, the Supreme Court fully agreed with the view of Patna High Court in Larsen & Tourbro's case that Rule 13A as amended in 2000, was not workable. The Supreme Court therefore did not interfere with the judgment. As noticed above, the petitioner has not challenged the vires of Rule 13A as amended in 2006 when the impugned order of reassessment has been passed after the amended Rule came into force. As a matter of fact, the whole case of the petitioner in the writ petition and the reliefs sought for therein are wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance.
23. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.