2003 (7) TMI 667 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer.
3. Correctness of the registration certificates issued under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act.
4. Applicability of Rule 83 for rectification of mistakes in the registration certificates.
5. Effective date for the rectification of the registration certificates.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Order Passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes:

The court quashed the impugned order dated December 11, 2000, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Zone, Berhampur, in annexure 7. The court found that the Additional Commissioner had wrongly dismissed the petitioner's application for rectification of its registration certificates.

2. Validity of the Order Passed by the Sales Tax Officer:

The court also quashed the order dated April 7, 2001, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore, in annexure 5 to the writ petition. The Sales Tax Officer had dismissed the petitioner's application for rectification of the registration certificates as not maintainable. The court held that this dismissal was incorrect and directed that the registration certificate of the petitioner be rectified.

3. Correctness of the Registration Certificates Issued Under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act:

The petitioner, a dealer executing works contract, had applied for registration certificates under both the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The registering authority issued the registration certificates but mentioned "NIL" in the relevant columns for goods for resale and goods used for execution of works contract. The court found that this was an error apparent on the face of the record and should have been rectified.

4. Applicability of Rule 83 for Rectification of Mistakes in the Registration Certificates:

The court referred to Rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, which allows for the rectification of mistakes such as clerical errors or errors apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the error in the registration certificates was rectifiable under Rule 83 and that the Sales Tax Officer should have corrected the mistake when the petitioner applied for rectification.

5. Effective Date for the Rectification of the Registration Certificates:

The court directed that the rectification of the registration certificates should be effective from October 23, 1998, the date from which the original registration certificates were made effective. The court distinguished this case from a previous case (FACT Limited v. State of Orissa) where the amendment was directed to be effective from the date of filing the amendment application. In this case, the application for amendment was essentially a petition for rectification under Rule 83, and a specific prayer had been made to make the amendment effective from the date of the original registration.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the registration certificates should be rectified by including the names of the goods for resale and use in the execution of works contracts, effective from October 23, 1998. The court further directed the issuance of necessary declaration forms under the Central Sales Tax Act so that the petitioner could avail of the benefits granted under the statute. The petition was allowed.