2003 (4) TMI 524 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
Prayer for direction to recall/cancel orders and grant amendment of registration certificate under Central Sales Tax Act for coverage of goods and materials required for detergent manufacturing.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a direction to recall/cancel orders and amend their registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act to include raw materials and packing materials necessary for detergent manufacturing. The petitioners applied for registration on January 27, 1999, providing a list of required materials. Despite a hearing on February 10, 1999, the registration certificate was issued on February 20, 1999, without coverage for the mentioned materials. Subsequently, requests for amendment were made, leading to a series of applications and orders, including one on February 2, 2001, specifying items for inclusion in the certificate. Dissatisfied with the Deputy Commissioner's decision upholding the order, the petitioners approached the Additional Commissioner, whose decision on May 29, 2002, further led to the writ application challenging the refusal to amend the registration certificate from the date of first purchase.

The main contention was whether the amendment of the registration certificate should be allowed from the date of first purchase of materials or only from the date of the formal application for amendment. The petitioners argued that the registration certificate should be liberally construed for tax benefits, emphasizing the necessity of the materials for detergent production. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the amendment should be allowed from the date of the real application, not an earlier date. The court considered the necessity of the materials for detergent manufacturing and the objective of granting relief to the petitioner for purchasing materials from outside the state.

The court held that there was no just ground for refusing the amendment from the date of registration, especially considering the essential nature of the materials. It emphasized that formal application was not a legal requirement for amending the registration certificate. The court found the authorities' decision to allow the amendment only from the date of the formal application to be illegal. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent authorities to incorporate the necessary amendment from the date of the first purchase of materials following the registration granted by the respondent authority. The writ application was allowed in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs.