1962 (10) TMI 47 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act in relation to voluntary registration under section 9-A.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the assessment of sales tax on a dealer who applied for voluntary registration under section 9-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The dealer argued that the delay in granting the registration certificate was not his fault and therefore he should not be liable to pay sales tax for the period before the certificate was granted. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially agreed with the dealer, but the Sales Tax Tribunal held that section 12(5) applied to applications under section 9 and not section 9-A. This interpretation was challenged in the court.

The liability of a dealer to pay sales tax is governed by section 4 of the Act, which is based on the annual turnover. Section 9 requires dealers to register once their turnover exceeds the prescribed limit, with penalties for non-registration. Section 9-A allows for voluntary registration for dealers not liable to pay tax under section 4. The application process for registration under sections 9 and 9-A differs in terms of turnover declaration, highlighting the distinction between the two types of registration.

Section 12 of the Act deals with assessment, including sub-section (5) which pertains to dealers liable to pay tax but failing to apply for registration without sufficient cause. The court analyzed the language of this section along with section 4(2) and concluded that section 12(5) applies when the liability to pay sales tax accrued before registration. The court referenced a decision of the Patna High Court to support this interpretation.

The petitioner argued that the delay in granting the registration certificate should absolve him from liability under section 12(5). However, the court held that the mere pendency of the registration application under section 9-A did not exempt the dealer from the requirements of section 12(5). The court distinguished a previous case where a similar issue arose but related to registration under section 9, not section 9-A. Ultimately, the court upheld the Sales Tax Tribunal's interpretation of the law and dismissed the application with costs.