9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur, issued the recognition certificate prayed for on 9th April, 1970. It was mentioned in the certificate that it will come into effect from the date of the application, namely, 26th March, 1969. Subsequently, the Sales Tax Officer passed an order on 1st August, 1970, purporting to be under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, directing that the aforesaid recognition certificate was to take effect from the date of its issue, i.e., 9th April, 1970, and not from the date of the application as mentioned in it. According to the petitioner, before making alteration in the recognition certificate, the Sales Tax Officer did not issue any notice to him nor did he afford any opportunity to him to have his say in the matter. Subsequently, for the assessment year 1969-70, he assessed the petitioner to purchase tax as if the recognition certificate issued on 9th April, 1970, did not enure for that assessment year. The petitioner has now approached this court for exercising its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. He contends that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make any alteration in the recognition certificate without issuing notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recognition certificate moved on 26th March, 1969, was accompanied by court-fee stamp of Rs. 10 of the erstwhile Rampur State issued by the Shahjahanpur treasury. Staff of the Sales Tax Office, Shahjahanpur, however, felt doubtful whether that court-fee stamp could be accepted. Accordingly, a note was made on the back of that stamp for making enquiry from the Treasury Officer, whether court-fee stamp belonging to the Rampur State could be validly used. Later on, the head clerk returned that stamp to the petitioner and asked him to supply another court-fee stamp which the petitioner did on 26th March, 1969 (sic). The petitioner claims that the application dated 26th March, 1969, was not defective in any manner. Court-fee stamp belonging to the Rampur State and issued by the Shahjahanpur treasury was quite valid and the Sales Tax Officer should have acted upon it. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to recognition certificate with effect from 26th March, 1969. The first question that arises for consideration is whether before directing rectification of the recognition certificate it was obligatory upon the Sales Tax Officer to issue notice to the petitioner and to afford him a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to the dealer without affording him an opportunity of being heard, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon rule 25-A(9), which lays down that the Sales Tax Officer may on his own motion, where he is satisfied that any of the events mentioned in subsection (4) of section 4-B has occurred, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, cancel or amend the recognition certificate. He contends that this rule clearly provides that the recognition certificate cannot be amended without notice to the dealer concerned. It may be mentioned that rule 25-A(9) enables a Sales Tax Officer to cancel or amend a recognition certificate only if he is satisfied that any of the events mentioned in sub-section (4) of section 4-B has taken place. In the present case, the certificate has been rectified as under the law it is required to take effect from the date of its issue, but by mistake it had been made effective from the date of application. Sub-section (4) of section 4-B does not contemplate amendment of recognition certificate on this ground. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from rule 25-A(9). But, as stated earlier, in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even structure of the sentence." Rules of interpretation are there for finding out the real intention of the Legislature from the words used by it in the enactment, so that full effect may be given to the legislative intent. If the grammatical construction, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, which presumably was not intended by the Legislature, it can be safely presumed that the Legislature did not use the expressions in its ordinary sense. These observations cannot possibly mean that irrespective of the intention of the Legislature the law courts can alter the language used in a statute or to change its meaning so as to bring in accordance with their own notions of reasonableness. As we read section 4-13 and rule 25-A(5) it is quite clear that the Legislature intended the concessions enumerated in section 4-13 to be given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate. Now, before issuing the certificate, the Sales Tax Officer has to make enquiries which in some cases may take less time than what it would take in other cases. So far as sub-rule (4) of rule 25-A is concerned, it provides a clear guideline according to which the Sales Tax Officer has to issue a certificate immediately after completing the enquiry and satisfying himself that the particulars required to be furnished in the application for recognition certificate are correct. If in some case, the grant of certificate is delayed as the inquiry cannot be completed earlier and recognition certificate is issued to another dealer who applied for it subsequently, but in whose case the inquiry has been completed, it cannot be said that any discrimination forbidden by article 14 has taken place. The time that a Sales Tax Officer takes to complete the enquiry depends upon the facts of each case and the load of work with him at a particular time. The rule-making authority has taken care to provide that as far as possible the Sales Tax Officer should complete his enquiry and issue recognition certificate within a period of 30 days from the date of application. If, however, for some re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
