1996 (6) TMI 319 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Whether any application dated February 19, 1991, for amendment of R.C. was made on February 20, 1991.
2. If so, whether the amendment should be made with effect from that date.
3. If the C.T.O. concerned has acted illegally in amending R.C. effective from March 20, 1992.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether any application dated February 19, 1991, for amendment of R.C. was made on February 20, 1991:

The applicant claimed to have sent an application for amendment of the registration certificate (R.C.) on February 20, 1991, but the respondents denied receipt of such application. The respondents argued that no such application was received by the Commercial Tax Officer (C.T.O.), and the official records showed no receipt of such an application. The application was not sent by registered post; hence, there was no presumption of delivery. The Tribunal noted that mere evidence of preparation and dispatch of the application by ordinary post did not meet the requirement of "making an application to the Commercial Tax Officer for amendment." The Tribunal also highlighted that the certificate of posting was only proof of posting an envelope, not its contents or delivery. The Tribunal found the circumstances did not support the presumption that the letter reached the C.T.O. in the ordinary course of business.

2. If so, whether the amendment should be made with effect from that date:

The Tribunal examined whether, assuming the application was made, the amendment should be effective from that date. Rule 11(3)(a) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, states that the C.T.O. may make the amendment with retrospective effect from the date of filing of the application or the date of purchase of goods, whichever is later. The Tribunal concluded that since the application dated February 19, 1991, was neither proved nor presumed to have reached the appropriate C.T.O., the only application on record was dated March 20, 1992, received by the C.T.O. on March 27, 1992. Therefore, the amendment should be effective from March 27, 1992, as it was later than the dates of alleged purchases.

3. If the C.T.O. concerned has acted illegally in amending R.C. effective from March 20, 1992:

The Tribunal noted that the C.T.O. acted on the application dated March 20, 1992, which bore a reference to the original application dated February 19, 1991. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the C.T.O.'s silence on the original application implied its existence and was binding as an estoppel. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes mentioned that no petition dated February 19, 1991, was traceable, indicating no implied admission of its receipt. The Tribunal concluded that the C.T.O. was under no legal obligation to make the amendment effective from the alleged date of posting of the petition for amendment under the certificate of posting. The Tribunal upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order making the amendment effective from February 20, 1992, and dismissed the application without disturbing the order.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that mere dispatch of a letter under a certificate of posting did not amount to "making an application" within the meaning of rule 11(3) of the 1941 Rules. The amendment of the R.C. should be effective from the date of receipt of the application, i.e., March 27, 1992, but upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order making it effective from February 20, 1992. The Tribunal made no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →