9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacture/production of hessian/carpet backing, yarn, gunny bags and pack sheets and is also engaged in exporting and selling of such products. Since Messrs. Union Jute Co. Ltd., whose jute mill was nationalised and vested in NJMC was a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 ("the 54 Act", for short) holding registration certificate bearing No. LR/270/54A, it is stated by the applicant that it did not initially deem it necessary to apply for fresh registration under the 54 Act on the impression that the registration certificate number held by Union Jute Co. Ltd., would continue to be held by it in view of the provisions of section 4(5) of the 1980 Act and that the registration certificate of the erstwhile Union Jute Co. Ltd., would be endorsed in its favour. However, on subsequent advice of its tax consultant, application for registration under the 54 Act was filed on July 22, 1981, before the respondent No. 2, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range Charge, who granted new registration certificate bearing No. LR/431/54A with effect from October 26, 1981 in its favour for its Union Jute Mill. On March 26, 1985, the respondent No. 1, namely, the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of liability and granted the benefit of registration on and from December 22, 1980 for its Union Jute Mill as well inasmuch as the cases of Alexandra and Union Jute Mills are similar, neither having any separate legal entity, though functioning separately for convenience of business. The applicant has, therefore, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents to extend the benefit of registration for Union Jute Mill with effect from December 22, 1980, that is, from the date of commencement of liability following nationalisation under the 1980 Act. *Reported as National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1982] 49 STC 271 (Cal). 3.. In their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents have alleged that the applicant was fully aware of the fact that, pursuant to the nationalisation of the Union Jute Company, it could not be held to be a transferee either under section 17 of the 41 Act or under section 15 of the 54 Act in view of the provisions of the 1980 Act. The applicant had applied for registration under the 41 Act in respect of its Alexandra unit before the respondent No. 2 who had by an order dated March 18, 1981, rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of notified commodity on December 22, 1980, the application for registration under the 54 Act was submitted only on July 22, 1981 after considerable delay and hence the respondents could not be held at fault for non-accrual of any tax *Reported as National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1982] 49 STC 271 (Cal). benefits or concessions which would otherwise have been available had the applicant filed the application for registration on time, that is, within a very short period after December 22, 1980. The ratio of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 7846(W) of 1981 reported at [1982] 49 STC 271 (National Jute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer) cannot also apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case since the application of Union Jute was not rejected by the respondent No. 2 as in the case of Alexandra but allowed on October 26, 1981 soon after the application was filed on July 22, 1981. Only the provisions of the 54 Act and the 54 Rules being material and pertinent to the grant of certificate of registration, registration takes effect according to the same from the date of order granting regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Officer). Mr. Bose, therefore, submitted that NJMC should be deemed to be in operation with effect from December 22, 1980, although registration is granted with effect from October, 1981, having regard to section 4(5) of the 1980 Act. 6.. Mr. T.N. De, the learned State Representative, argued that a registration certificate under the 54 Act cannot be equated with a licence contemplated in section 4(5) of the 1980 Act, this being altogether different. Hence, section 4(5) of the 1980 Act can have no manner of application in the present case. Even assuming that a registration certificate would come within the meaning of the expression "any licence or other instrument" referred to in section 4(5) of the 1980 Act, and in spite of the non obstante clause in section 24 of the 1980 Act, there cannot be any question of any repugnancy between the provisions of the 1980 Act which is a Central Act and the provisions of the 54 Act, which is a State Act, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, reported in [1984] 55 STC 1. In that case, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Bihar F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act which was a law made by Parliament relatable to entry 33 of List III. The question of repugnancy could only arise in connection with the subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List as regards which both the Union and the State Legislatures had concurrent powers so that the question of conflict between laws made by both Legislatures relating to the same subject might arise. Mr. T.N. De, the learned State Representative, therefore, contended that in the instant case also, the provisions of the 1980 Act cannot override the provisions of the 54 Act, enacted by the State Legislature under entry 54 of List II nor can there by any question of repugnancy or inconsistency between the two. The provisions in the 54 Act relating to registration of dealers will, therefore, apply to the instant case and not sections 4(5) and 24 of the 1980 Act. 7.. On the question of discrimination as between Alexandra Unit of NJMC and Union Jute, Mr. T.N. De submitted that in the case of Alexandra, the application for registration was made on January 16, 1981 which was rejected by an order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Lyons Range Charge, dated March 18, 1981, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omen Bose on behalf of the applicant that in view of sections 4(5) and 24 of the 1980 Act, NJMC should be entitled to the benefit of registration for its Union Jute Mill with effect from December 22, 1980, regardless of the provisions of the 54 Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, reported in [1984] 55 STC 1, referred to by Mr. T.N. De, the learned State Representative. It is the admitted position before us that NJMC is not liable to be treated as a transferee under section 15 of the 54 Act. There is also no dispute that retrospective effect to registration cannot be given under the provisions of the 54 Act as existing. It is also on record that in the case of Alexandra, the application was made on January 16, 1981, for fresh registration. We are, therefore, unable to agree with Mr. Somen Bose that there has been a discrimination in the case of Union Jute and a violation of article 14 of the Constitution. As rightly pointed out by Mr. T.N. De, whereas in the case of Alexandra Unit, the application was filed on January 16, 1981 and registration was also granted with effect from the same date in pursuance of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
