1970 (2) TMI 126 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the application to include four specific items in the certificate of registration of a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act should have been allowed.

Comprehensive Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, filed an application to include certain items in its certificate of registration for purchasing articles at a concessional rate. The Sales Tax Officer allowed some items but refused others. The Commissioner of Sales Tax affirmed the decision regarding the remaining items, leading to a writ application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. The key consideration was whether the application for items 4, 5, 7, and 8 should have been allowed, as per sections 8(1)(b) and 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, along with rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. These provisions outline the liability to pay tax for inter-State trade and the types of goods a registered dealer can purchase for specific purposes.

3. The provisions state that goods a dealer sells to a registered dealer must be intended for specific uses as outlined in the certificate of registration. Rule 13 further specifies the types of goods a registered dealer may purchase for manufacturing, processing, or other specified purposes. The taxing authorities were required to assess whether the disputed items met these criteria.

4. The legal clarity on the matter improved with a Supreme Court decision in J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, which emphasized a broad interpretation of "in the manufacture of goods." The Sales Tax Officer was directed to consider whether items 4, 5, 7, and 8 were used in the manufacturing or processing activities of the petitioner, offering the dealer an opportunity to explain their usage.

5. Additionally, a circular issued by the Central Government enumerating classes of goods for registration certificates was brought to the Sales Tax Officer's attention for re-examination. The judgment allowed the writ application, quashed the previous orders, and remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer for reconsideration in line with the Supreme Court decision and the observations made.

6. The judgment was delivered by Misra G.K., C.J., and Acharya S., J., with the application being allowed in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for a thorough re-examination of the disputed items in accordance with the legal provisions and the Supreme Court decision.