9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Revision Case No. C.C.(s) 355 of 1996-97 is also challenged. The order of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Patna, is annexure 7 and the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated February 16, 1999, is annexure 6. 4.. Mainly, what is supposed to have aggrieved the petitioners is that, according to the petitioners, the "consolidated registration" has been denied within the meaning of sub-rule (4) of rule 3 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. The contention of the petitioners is that as it carried on business at several place in Bihar (Jharkhand, not excluded, as such circumstances are on record) the State of Bihar is obliged to grant a "consolidated registration", to put it in the words of the petitioners under the aforesaid rule. 5.. At the outset the court will take this matter up first as the petitioners appear to be under some misunderstanding on an aspect of being given permission to have the convenience of a "consolidated registration" as opposed to a consolidated return. In so far as the registration is concerned, before a person takes up a business venture which may attract the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed the entire circumstance has to be taken into account. 8.. The reason why the Tribunal did not permit the petitioners to receive a "consolidated registration", as the petitioners call it and desire it, this is best noticed, in the order of the Tribunal. The passages are reproduced: "The learned Commissioner has refused consolidated registration on the ground that the petitioner is engaged in malpractices and unfair means hence it would be prejudicial to the work of collection of taxes if consolidated registration is granted. Really when complete separate account of sales, purchases and expenses at different branches have not been made it would not be fairly possible to assess the entire transaction at a distant central place and the local officer of the branches who are at the spot having more information those could assess the transaction better there if occasion to best judgment arise in absence of any account books maintained for those places of business, hence the learned Commissioner rightly did not find it a fit case for consolidated registration and refused the prayer. Above all the learned Commissioner has said in his order that he has received information t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has not been answered by the petitioners in the rejoinder and a reply has been evaded. Then there is another affidavit which has been filed by the State of Bihar on February 28, 2001. In this counter-affidavit the situation in the other writ petition is also being taken care of. The contention in this counter-affidavit in paragraph 3(e) in the matter relating to M/s. S.C.I. India Limited is, to the effect, that the turnover of this petitioner stood at Rs. 17,96,40,136. On this, the tax, i.e., the sales tax amounted to Rs. 4,49,10,034. It is stated by the State of Bihar that the High Court by its order dated October 16, 1998 directed the petitioner to deposit the amount, and consequentially the amount of tax standing at Rs. 4,49,10,034 should have been deposited. It is contended that the petitioners disputed the aforesaid figures by filing an interlocutory application in which they have admitted that they have collected sales tax on sale of spiced country liquor/country liquor amounting to Rs. 1,25,89,200. The department on the contrary placed figures that petitioner's turnover with regard to country liquor/spiced country liquor for the period between November 18, 1997 and Septemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs. Other evidences which are in possession of the department reveal that these dealers deliberately reduced their taxable turnover by not including the amount of excise duty in their sale price and in almost all cases they unauthorisedly collected additional tax on the sale of country liquor. Even after repeated instructions of the honourable Court they have not discharged their full statutory liability on account of sales tax. That the petitioner was originally registered as a dealer under section 14 of the Act at Bhagalpur. That the procedure adopted by the petitioner is that the spirit manufactured at Bhagalpur factory is consigned to his different bonded warehouses (as authorised by Excise Department) and it is at these bonded warehouses the country liquor is manufactured/prepared and sacheted for marketing. Because the production takes place at different bonded warehouses, the department strongly feels that the verification of production sale account of the petitioner cannot be verified if the petitioners are granted permission under rule 3(4)(a) of the Rules as a particular circle does not have the statutory jurisdiction overall the places. It is also relevant to point o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s long as the stay order of the High Court was there the petitioners stood protected under the cover of the stay order so as not to deposit the tax. The petitioners forget that the stay order only provides a temporary reprieve and upon an action not succeeded then the liability during that period does not disappear. So the argument which the petitioners are taking is of no help. 15.. The only issue is whether the State of Bihar was right in not permitting, even if it were to go to the ultimate extent on a prayer not made, the indulgence of filing the consolidated return. The petitioners desire "consolidated registration". Of the totality of the circumstances which are on record upon the State of Bihar coming to a prima facie satisfaction that it would not be in the interest of the State to even consider the prayer of the petitioners to grant indulgence of either "consolidated registration" or the filing of a consolidated returns, this Court is unable to be persuaded that the Tribunal has committed any error. 16.. At the close of the submissions it needs to be recorded that the court did make it clear to counsel for the petitioners that if they desired the tax be paid in instalm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
