1992 (5) TMI 180 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal to issue Form IB by sales tax authorities.
2. Amendment of the certificate of registration without notice.
3. Validity of notification under section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.
4. Correctness of assessments for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to issue Form IB by sales tax authorities:
The petitioner argued that the sales tax authorities unlawfully refused to issue Form IB, which is necessary for availing sales tax concessions on raw materials. The petitioner contended that the authorities had no statutory right to adjudicate the nature of transactions while dealing with the application for forms, and such adjudication falls within the domain of assessment. The court agreed, stating that the Sales Tax Officer has no power to look into the mode of utilization of the forms at the time of issuing them. The refusal to issue Form IB was deemed unauthorized and illegal. The court directed the Sales Tax Officer to issue the forms within ten days.

2. Amendment of the certificate of registration without notice:
The petitioner challenged the amendment of the certificate of registration, arguing that it was done without notice and opportunity. The court found that the notice given by the Sales Tax Officer did not indicate an intention to amend the certificate of registration. The amendment was made without proper notice, and the order of the Additional Commissioner upholding the amendment was based on non-application of mind. The court quashed the amendments made by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner. The Sales Tax Officer was directed to give proper opportunity to the petitioner before making any amendments.

3. Validity of notification under section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947:
The petitioner claimed that the notification under section 6 dated February 13, 1987, was at variance with the promises held out in the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1986 (IPR). However, the court found no definite pleading or particulars regarding the alleged variance. The mere assertion without necessary particulars was insufficient. Consequently, the court declined to examine the question.

4. Correctness of assessments for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89:
The petitioner characterized the assessments as perverse and the outcome of non-application of mind. However, since the assessments were already challenged in appeals, the court declined to examine their correctness.

Conclusion:
1. The refusal to issue declaration form in Form IB was unjustified, and the Sales Tax Officer was directed to issue the same within ten days.
2. The amendments to the certificate of registration made by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner were quashed. The Sales Tax Officer may amend the certificate after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.
3. The court declined to examine the challenge regarding the variance of entry 26-D with the promises held out in IPR, 1986, due to lack of definite pleadings and particulars.
4. The court declined to examine the correctness of the assessments as they were already challenged in appeals.

Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.