1973 (7) TMI 88 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Application for writ of certiorari to quash an order by the Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting relief under rule 6-A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, applied to the Commissioner to carry on business in multiple districts based on a single registration in Ganjam-I Circle. The Commissioner refused, citing difficulty in monitoring transactions due to substantial business volume and non-seasonal nature. Rule 6-A allows registration in a circle specified by the Commissioner for dealers without a fixed place of business or operating in circles other than their registered places of business. The petitioner's case falls under the latter aspect of the rule. The standing counsel argued against the petitioner's claim, stating rule 6-A applies only when a dealer has no registration and applies for the first time. However, the court found no such limitation in the rule's language, supporting the petitioner's application scenario.

The court deliberated on whether the impugned order should be quashed. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reasons given by the Commissioner justified granting relief under rule 6-A. The court acknowledged the Commissioner's discretion in applying the rule and found the reasons for rejection legitimate. The court noted the administrative challenges in effectively monitoring a dealer's business beyond the Commissioner's jurisdiction, especially with substantial turnover and non-seasonal operations. As the Commissioner's reasoning was valid and fair, the court upheld the order, dismissing the writ petition. The judges concluded that since the Commissioner had provided sound justifications for withholding relief under rule 6-A, they could not intervene and direct the Commissioner to grant the requested relief. The petition was ultimately dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In a separate judgment, B.K. Ray, J., concurred with the decision to dismiss the petition.