1963 (4) TMI 27 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Amendment of registration certificate by Commercial Tax Officer without dealer's information. Jurisdiction of Commissioner to amend registration certificate. Interpretation of "information otherwise received" under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. Justification of amending registration certificate based on generic word usage. Delegation of power to amend registration certificate to Commercial Tax Officers.

Analysis:
The case involved a petitioner-company registered as commission agents and dealers under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, authorized to purchase certain goods tax-free. The Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the petitioner to delete "general merchandise" from their registration certificate. The petitioner objected, arguing that the Officer lacked jurisdiction to make such amendments. The petitioner moved to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the cancellation of the notice.

The main argument presented was that the Commissioner, not the Commercial Tax Officer, had the power to amend registration certificates under section 7(4) of the Act. The Court noted that the Act allowed for amendments based on information received, which could include information detected by the authorities themselves. The Court emphasized that the power to amend was not limited to information provided by dealers but extended to matters discovered by the authorities.

Referring to a similar case, the Court held that the broad interpretation of "information otherwise received" allowed the authorities to correct errors in registration certificates upon detection or discovery. In this case, the addition of "general merchandise" to the certificate was considered irregular as it did not specify the class of goods as required by the Act, justifying the amendment.

The Court also addressed the delegation of power under section 15 of the Act, noting that the Commissioner could delegate the power to amend registration certificates to Commercial Tax Officers. Therefore, the Commercial Tax Officer was justified in attempting to amend the certificate in question.

Ultimately, the Court discharged the Rule with costs, affirming the Commercial Tax Officer's authority to make the amendment and rejecting the petitioner's arguments against it.