9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to get benefit of concessional rate of tax and also exemption from payment of sales tax on the purchase of the said raw materials. The registration certificate in form No. IIA being No. PG/ 899A was issued to the petitioner on 5th July, 1949, by the Commercial Tax Officer, 24-Parganas Charge, and thereafter a duplicate copy of the registration certificate dated 5th July, 1949, was issued on 21st November, 1968, by the Commercial Tax Officer in lieu of PG/899 containing the raw materials on which the rate of tax would be applicable which is specified in section 5(1)(bb) of the said Act. Since the date of the said registration granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is regularly assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, 24-Parganas, and now by respondent No. 1. The petitioner being a registered dealer was all along getting the benefit of concessional rate of tax under section 5(1)(bb) of the said Act on the purchase of the raw materials as specified in the said registration certificate which were used in the manufacture of goods. The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, valid from 1st July, 1957. The accounts maintained by the petitioner comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s specified in the registration certificate which were used in the manufacture, respondent No. 1 issued the declaration forms against the said raw materials purchased by the petitioner from the registered dealer. After furnishing the declaration forms issued by respondent No. 1 against the purchase bills, the petitioner got the benefits of payment of the tax at a concessional rate and also exemption from payment of sales tax on the goods purchased from the registered dealer against the said declaration forms. The declaration forms were issued by respondent No. 1 regularly up to the date 21st May, 1980, since the date of registration as on 5th July, 1949, to the petitioner. The petitioner sold the goods, manufactured by the petitioner, i.e., hand signal lamps, buffer lamps, tail lamps, side lamps, slide doors, aluminium wall protectors and other railway fittings and also tin containers, to the railway authorities as well as other registered dealers and customers. The petitioner allowed the concessional rate of tax and exemption from payment of tax on the sale of manufactured goods against the declaration forms supplied by the railway authorities and other registered dealers which we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r succeeds in the proceedings in which such amount is disputed, the same would be refunded to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is directed to issue sales tax declaration forms as may be required by the petitioner in accordance with law. The first instalment will be paid within 15th April, 1983, and each subsequent instalment by 15th of each subsequent month." The application is thus disposed of. In compliance with the said directions contained in the order dated 25th March, 1983, the petitioner paid the entire disputed tax by instalments. The grievance of the petitioner in this application is that by the order dated 7th April, 1983, certified copy whereof was obtained by the petitioner on 21st December, 1983, the Commercial Tax Officer rejected the application for declaration forms, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is not the manufacturer of the goods mentioned in the registration certificate in the manufacturing column and the materials purchased were not used in the manufacture of the said goods but were used for manufacturing goods other than mentioned in the manufacturing column. According to the Commercial Tax Officer both the manufactured goods and purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said application for registration that the petitioner specifically mentioned that it manufactures electrical goods as well as other goods. There is no dispute that the petitioner manufactures side lamps, table lamps, buffer lamps, etc., as well as aluminium wall protectors and sliding doors mostly for the railways. It is true that in the registration certificate side lamps, table lamps, etc., aluminium wall protectors and sliding doors are not specifically mentioned. But the registration Certificate covers the manufacture of all sorts of metal sheet cases, hollow wares, enamel wares, all sorts of bronze, copper, lead, zinc and bronze materials. These goods are necessary for the manufacture of lamps and other goods. In the application for registration the petitioner has specified various items which include electrical goods and other goods manufactured by the petitioner. By the registration certificate the petitioner has been allowed to purchase free of tax brass, copper, bronze and any other materials, plant, machinery, spare parts, accessories and consumable stores which are required for use in any process in the manufacture of all sorts of metal sheet cases, hollow wares, enamel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner obtained benefit by way of exemption in the assessment as a registered dealer. The petitioner issued the declaration forms to the purchasing dealers of the petitioner who also received benefit on the basis of such declaration forms issued to them by the petitioner. If at this stage the entire issue is to be reopened and redetermined on the basis of mistake which crept in the registration certificate this will create not only hardship to the petitioner but also to other dealers to whom the petitioner had issued the declaration forms. The respondents have all along examined the register of written declarations before issuing the declaration forms relevant enquiries were also made by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. At this stage the refusal to issue declaration forms will result in great injustice and it will be most inequitable having regard to the acceptance for these long years that the registration certificate covers the goods manufactured by the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to have the declaration forms in respect of the purchase made for manufacture of such goods. Had the application for the petitioner been rejected at the earlier stage the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly and mainly contain the goods which are being manufactured by the petitioner. It is, therefore, imperative to amend the registration certificate by incorporating the goods manufactured by the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Dutt, learned Advocate for the respondents, has contended that after the mistake was detected by the officer he would be entitled to refuse any further declaration forms until the registration certificate of the dealer was amended by covering the goods manufactured by the petitioner. This contention is of substance and has to be accepted. But having regard to the fact that there has been a mistake or error in the registration certificate for no fault of the dealer the proper course would be to amend the registration certificate and thereafter to issue declaration forms. A contention has been raised that if an application is made now for amendment whether such amendment will be with retrospective effect. This Court in the case of Jagadish Prosad Agarwalla v. State of West Bengal reported in [1979] 44 STC 412 held that where a registration certificate issued to a dealer which contains an error or mistake committed by the officer in issuing the certificate, the authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the petitioner in accordance with law. This application is thus disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of the operative portion of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Advocate for the parties concerned. Appendix [The judgment of ANIL KUMAR SEN, J., of the Calcutta High Court in Hetram Agarwal and Others v. Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri Charge, Siliguri, and Others (Civil Rule No. 2324(W) of 1967 decided on 23rd February, 1973) is printed below: ] HETRAM AGARWAL v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ANIL KUMAR SEN, J.-The petitioners in this writ petition are the partners of a firm known as Begraj Asoke Kumar. They carry on their business at Siliguri. On 16th January, 1959, the petitioners applied for registration of their firm under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The application was made in the prescribed form and in item No. 16(a) the petitioner specified the various commodities they had been dealing with for resale in order that those commodities may be set out in the registration certificate. In the present application we are concerned with one such commodity, viz., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ult the petitioners' vendors were called upon by the Commercial Tax Authorities of those States to pay sales tax for which earlier exemption was obtained against the declaration forms issued by the Commercial Tax Authorities, Siliguri. Faced with these circumstances the petitioners made an application on 26th August, 1967, praying therein for an order "giving retrospective effect of the amendment order dated 7th June, 1966, from the date of registration certificate, i.e., 18th April, 1959, or for amending the registration certificate including items mentioned in the application for registration and not included in the R.C. by the C.T.O., Jalpaiguri Charge, from the date of R.C., i.e., 18th April, 1959". This application was rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer, respondent No. 1, by an order dated 30th October, 1967, on the view that he is not competent either to review or to revise any order passed by his predecessor in office. It is this last order which is the subject-matter of challenge though at the hearing an alternative prayer has been added with leave of the Court for revising the old grant dated 18th April, 1959, in terms of the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Commercial Tax Officer is quite clear to show that the application was allowed and an order was made directing issue of a registration certificate accordingly. It was but an error that in drawing up the certificate some of the commodities were left out particularly the pulses. Dr. Pal has also referred to rule 7(1)(c) read with rule 7(2) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules framed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with rule 11 of the Central Sales Tax (West Bengal) Rules, 1958, and has contended that it was obligatory on the part of the Commercial Tax Officer to incorporate in the certificate the class or classes of goods for which the registration was asked for in the same terms as were used by the dealer in the application form. Therefore, he has contended omission of pulses from the registration certificate was a pure error and the petitioners applied for rectification of the error under section 7(4)(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. He has contended that section 7(4)(a) contemplates different circumstances in which the certificate may be amended. It may be amended due to subsequent changes in the name, place or the nature of business or change of the clas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he has relied on a decision of Banerjee, J., in the case of Sri Saraswati Oil Company v. Commercial Tax Officer [C.R. No. 361(W) of 1962 disposed of on 11th September, 1963] reported in [1963] 1 RLR 197. In the decision relied on by Mr. Bose, no doubt, Banerjee, J., observed "there is no provision in the Act for amending registration certificate with retrospective effect and I cannot command the respondents so to do". But the fact remains that in the case before Banerjee, J., amendment was sought for due to subsequent change in the class or classes of goods the dealer was dealing with and what was claimed was retrospective effect from the date of the application and not from the date of the original grant. It was clearly not a case of amendment for rectification of any defect as in the present case and as was the case before Sinha, J. Be that as it may, on the pleadings before me I have no manner of doubt that pulses were omitted from the registration certificate when it was issued on 18th April, 1959, not because the petitioners' prayer in this respect was rejected on merits by the Commercial Tax Officer but by some mistake or misapprehension. It is for this reason that alth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
