1998 (4) TMI 511 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to revisional order by the writ petitioner
2. Inclusion of goods in registration certificates
3. Rejection of application for declaration forms
4. Comparative study of Orissa Sales Tax Act and West Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act
5. Interpretation of relevant sections of the Orissa Sales Tax Act

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner challenged the revisional order dated May 24, 1997, made by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Berhampur. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Sales Tax Officer to include goods intended for works contract in registration certificates under relevant tax acts.

2. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing shelters and executing works contracts, alleged that the Sales Tax Officer omitted the list of materials in the registration certificates without providing reasons. The petitioner requested the issuance of declaration forms, which was denied by the authority.

3. The petitioner argued that the decision to reject the application for declaration forms was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law, citing differences between the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The petitioner relied on judgments from various states to support their position.

4. The court conducted a comparative study of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the West Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act to analyze the treatment of works contractors. The court examined definitions, charging sections, and turnover provisions to determine the applicability of relevant laws.

5. After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing relevant legal provisions, the court found that the issues raised by the petitioner had been adequately addressed in previous judgments. The court concluded that the revisional authority had rightly rejected the petitioner's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

In the final judgment, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the revisional authority's decision was justified, and there was no merit in the petitioner's arguments to warrant interference. Judge R.K. Dash agreed with the decision, and the petition was ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs.