1994 (3) TMI 348 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant (NJMC) should be granted the benefit of registration under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("the 54 Act") with retrospective effect from December 22, 1980.
2. Whether the refusal to grant retrospective registration constitutes arbitrary action and a violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Whether the registration certificate under the 54 Act can be considered equivalent to a "licence or other instrument" under Section 4(5) of the Jute Companies (Nationalisation) Act, 1980 ("the 1980 Act").
4. Whether there was discrimination between the Union Jute Mill and the Alexandra Unit of NJMC in granting registration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Retrospective Registration:
The applicant, NJMC, argued that it should be granted the benefit of registration under the 54 Act from December 22, 1980, the date of the first sale and the commencement of liability following nationalisation under the 1980 Act. The respondents contended that there is no provision in the 54 Act for granting registration with retrospective effect. The tribunal agreed with the respondents, stating that retrospective effect to registration cannot be given under the provisions of the 54 Act as existing.

2. Arbitrary Action and Violation of Constitutional Rights:
NJMC claimed that the refusal to grant registration from December 22, 1980, was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The respondents argued that the application for registration was made belatedly on July 22, 1981, and that the applicant was aware of the need for timely registration. The tribunal found no violation of Article 14, noting that the delay in application was due to NJMC's own fault.

3. Equivalence of Registration Certificate to Licence:
NJMC argued that under Section 4(5) of the 1980 Act, the registration certificate under the 54 Act should be considered equivalent to a "licence or other instrument," allowing continuous operation of the business. The respondents countered that a registration certificate under the 54 Act cannot be equated with a licence under the 1980 Act. The tribunal agreed with the respondents, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, which held that there can be no repugnancy between the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act unless both relate to a subject in the Concurrent List.

4. Discrimination Between Union Jute Mill and Alexandra Unit:
NJMC contended that there was discrimination between its Union Jute Mill and its Alexandra Unit, as the latter was granted retrospective registration following a court order. The respondents explained that the Alexandra Unit's application was initially rejected and subsequently granted registration from the date of application following a court order. In contrast, the Union Jute Mill's application was filed late, and registration was granted from October 26, 1981. The tribunal found no discrimination, noting the differences in the timing and circumstances of the applications for the two units.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that NJMC should not be granted retrospective registration from December 22, 1980, under the 54 Act. However, in the interest of equity and justice, the tribunal directed the respondents to give effect to the registration from the date of application, July 22, 1981. The application was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →