9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Jharkhand. The petitioner, the assessee, continued to have separate registrations for the manufacturing units at Sindri and Chaibasa in the State of Jharkhand also, under the Finance Act. The petitioner made an application before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi, under rule 3(4) of the Rules. By order dated April 16, 2001, the prayer was refused on the ground that the company had the Sindri and Chaibasa works separately registered under rule 3 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, though on April 17, 2001, this Court directed the Commissioner to dispose of the application by a reasoned order in C.W.J.C. No. 1188 of 2001. On July 28, 2001, a consolidated registration was issued to the Cement Marketing Division of the company excluding the two manufacturing units at Sindri and Chaibasa covered by separate registrations under the Act. The order dated April 16, 2001 was challenged in appeal before the Jharkhand Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated October 18, 2001, set aside the order of the Commissioner and remanded the proceedings to the Commissioner directing a reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner-company. On October 1, 2003, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner at Patna in the erstwhile State of Bihar and in terms of rule 3(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 obtained permission for filing consolidated returns in respect of its cement products within the Patna Circle. What the petitioner-company has sought after the re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Bihar into the States of Bihar and Jharkhand, is to seek the continuance of the arrangement in the State of Jharkhand as well, with Ranchi as the consolidated circle. The petitioner-company has, of course, already separate registrations for its manufacturing units at Sindri and Chaibasa. 4.. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has acted illegally in ignoring the direction of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, which was binding on the Commissioner and going by the findings in the order of remand made by the Tribunal, the combined registration prayed for by the petitioner-company should have been granted. Counsel further pointed out that the Commissioner had committed an error in thinking that the Cement Manufacturing Division was a separate entity and not merely a division of the petitioner-company, a dealer under the Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5.. On examining the certificate of registration granted to the units of the petitioner-company at Sindri and Chaibasa, it is seen that the said certificates also take in cement as a product. The argument is that separate registrations were needed for the manufacturing units because of the need for purchase of raw materials for manufacturing cement and unless there is a registration for the manufacturing units in that behalf, the business of the manufacture could not be properly carried on. There is merit in that submission. But the only objection raised by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the respondents is that those registrations also take in cement; that the manufacturing units were also entitled to sell cement. The objection here taken is for the sale of cement; a dealer cannot have two separate registrations for two manufacturing units in addition to a combined registration at Ranchi. It is submitted that this will enable the petitioner to avoid tax, a contingency that had to be anticipated by the department. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company, in the light of this argument, submitted that the petitioner-company has no objection to "cement" being deleted fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, to some extend, tried to pick holes in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal and has tried to bypass the direction of the Tribunal. This attitude of the Commissioner cannot be appreciated, especially, since in our prior order we had pointed out that the Commissioner was bound by the order of remand passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal and the findings rendered by it. 7.. There is also another aspect. Under sections 84 and 85 of the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, all the Rules, orders and forms have been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. There is some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities at Jharkhand, after the re-organisation, were bound to respect the combined registration granted to the company in respect of its marketing division at Patna. What was involved was only a shifting of the venue from Patna to Ranchi. 8.. In the light of what we have stated above, we allow this writ petition and quash the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dated December 22, 2003. We direct the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to grant a combined registration to the petitionercompany in respect of all its units in the State of Jhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
