1998 (2) TMI 572 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revisional order on amendment of certificate of registration with retrospective effect.

Analysis:
The petitioner started a business of manufacturing and selling country liquor with rectified spirit. The petitioner applied for a certificate of registration under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The certificate initially did not include "rectified spirit" in the manufacturing column. A subsequent application for amendment was made to include "rectified spirit" with retrospective effect from the date of the original application. The revisional authority rejected the amendment on the grounds that the original application was for resale, not manufacture. The petitioner contended that the certificate should be effective from the date of the original application, as supported by various court decisions.

The petitioner argued that the certificate of registration should be operative from the date of application, as established by previous court decisions. The Revenue accepted this principle but contended that the factual position in this case justified the revisional authority's decision. The court referred to past judgments, such as Ganjam Soap Works v. State of Orissa, emphasizing that the registration certificate is effective from the date of application. The court also cited rule 7 of the Rules, which states that the certificate is effective from the date of application. The court held that the revisional authority's reasoning against retrospective amendment was incorrect, as the entries should operate from the date of application. The Sales Tax Officer was directed to reconsider the matter in light of the legal position established.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ application, emphasizing that the certificate of registration should be effective from the date of application. The court highlighted the importance of considering all relevant aspects of the application and filling any omissions promptly. The judgment was delivered by PASAYAT A. and DATTA S.C., JJ., with both judges concurring on the decision to allow the writ application.