1990 (3) TMI 342 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Sales Tax Officer's decision to list "execution of works contract" instead of the specific goods applied for in the registration certificate.
2. Whether the amendment to the registration certificate should be effective from the original date of issuance or from the date of the amendment application.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sales Tax Officer's Decision:

The petitioner entered into an agreement for the supply and erection of equipment for a sulphuric acid plant and applied for registration under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, listing the goods involved in their business. The appropriate authority granted the registration certificates but listed only "execution of works contract" instead of the specific goods.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Sales Tax Officer was wrong in not listing the specific goods and had failed to exercise his statutory duty due to a confidential circular. According to the counsel, the petitioner was entitled to have the goods listed from the original date of the certificate in 1985.

The Sales Tax Department contended that the authorities are not bound to list all goods applied for and can list only those goods the officer is satisfied the applicant deals with. They argued that the petitioner's application for amendment in December 1987 was rightly granted from the date of receipt of the application and not from the original date.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Rules, which require the Sales Tax Officer to be satisfied that the application conforms to the Act and Rules and that the dealer carries on business in the listed goods. If satisfied, the officer must issue a certificate including the goods applied for. Failure to list all goods applied for without recording reasons and giving a hearing amounts to a refusal of registration to that extent, which is beyond the officer's jurisdiction.

2. Effective Date of Amendment:

The petitioner sought an amendment to the registration certificate in December 1987, which was granted from the date of receipt of the application. The petitioner argued that the amendment should be effective from the original date of the certificate in 1985.

The court referred to section 9(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, which allows the Commissioner to amend a registration certificate based on information received. Such amendments take effect from the date the information is received. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the original certificate issued in 1985 and only sought an amendment after more than two years. The application for amendment did not request retroactive effect to the original date.

The court concluded that, despite the Sales Tax Officer's lack of jurisdiction to omit goods initially, the amendment would only be effective from the date of the amendment application. The revisional authority's order was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to omit goods from the registration certificate without proper procedure, but the amendment could not be retroactively applied to the original date. The amendment was rightly effective from the date of the amendment application.