1968 (9) TMI 104 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the restriction on the number of goods a dealer can purchase under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Date of effectiveness of an amendment in the registration certificate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case was the validity of the restriction imposed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on the number of goods the petitioner could purchase under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner had applied for an amendment to their registration certificate to add various goods for concessional tax rates. The Commissioner allowed the amendment but restricted the quantity of certain goods the petitioner could purchase. The court held that there was no statutory provision empowering the authority to specify the number of goods in the registration certificate. The court emphasized that the misuse of the certificate could be addressed through cancellation under section 7(4) of the Act. Therefore, the restriction on the number of goods imposed by the Commissioner was deemed unsustainable.

2. The second issue revolved around the date of effectiveness of the registration certificate's amendment. The Act and relevant rules did not specify a particular date for the effectiveness of an amendment. The court opined that when a dealer applies for an amendment, the date of the application should be considered as the effective date if the amendment is allowed. This approach was deemed equitable, especially considering delays in processing such requests. The court highlighted the importance of specifying the validity date in the registration certificate itself. The judgment emphasized that making the amendment effective from the application date would ensure clarity and compliance with declaration requirements under the Act.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashing the Commissioner's order that restricted the number of goods the petitioner could purchase and made the amendment effective from a later date. The court directed the removal of the restriction on goods and mandated the effectiveness of the amendment from the date of the petitioner's application. The petitioner was awarded costs, and the security deposit was to be refunded.