1997 (8) TMI 495 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the Certificate of Registration
2. Exclusion of Major Oil-Seeds from Eligibility Certificate
3. Validity of Proviso (a) to Section 18(8) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958
4. Reassessment Orders and Demand of Rs. 1,37,05,311

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of the Certificate of Registration:
The petitioner challenged the amendment to the certificate of registration dated August 9, 1988, which excluded "major oil-seeds" from the conditions of the eligibility certificate. The petitioner argued that the original certificate issued by the sales tax department allowed the purchase of all kinds of oil-seeds without payment of sales tax, and the amendment was beyond the scope of the exemption notification.

2. Exclusion of Major Oil-Seeds from Eligibility Certificate:
The petitioner contended that the exclusion of major oil-seeds in conditions Nos. 4 and 5(d) of the eligibility certificate was not in accordance with the exemption notification. The petitioner argued that the notification did not specify any conditions regarding the type of oil-seeds and that the classification into low oil content and high oil content was not permitted. The court noted that the petitioner's unit was registered as a soya bean extracting plant, which did not consume major oil-seeds. The court found that the eligibility certificate issued by the Industries Department was consistent with the registration certificate and did not suffer from any illegality.

3. Validity of Proviso (a) to Section 18(8) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958:
The petitioner challenged the validity of proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the Act, arguing it was ultra vires as it did not lay down any period of limitation for reassessment. The court referred to the case of Adarsh General Stores v. Sales Tax Officer, Satna, where the proviso had already been declared ultra vires. Therefore, the court did not delve further into this issue and upheld the previous ruling.

4. Reassessment Orders and Demand of Rs. 1,37,05,311:
The petitioner sought to quash the reassessment orders and the demand of Rs. 1,37,05,311 created by the respondent. The court did not find merit in this part of the petition, as the reassessment and demand were consistent with the corrected eligibility certificate and the conditions laid down therein.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed in part. The court declared proviso (a) to section 18(8) of the Act as ultra vires. However, the rest of the petition, including the challenge to the amendment of the certificate of registration and the exclusion of major oil-seeds, was dismissed. The court found that the petitioner's eligibility certificate and the conditions imposed were consistent with the statutory provisions and did not suffer from any illegality. The security amount, if deposited, was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.