9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the writ petitions, the petitioner is same and has challenged the order dated December 16, 2004 (annexure 3) passed by opposite party No. 2, Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, South Zone, Berhampur (hereinafter referred to as, the revisional authority ) in Revision Case Nos. PU-216 and 217 of 2000-01 by which the revisional authority refused the petitioner's prayer to issue direction for restoration of the registration certificates of the petitioner which were earlier granted under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, the OST Act ) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, the CST Act ) and subsequently cancelled by opposite party No. 3, Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as, the STO ) vide annexure 2, on the ground that the STO has illegally cancelled the registration certificates with retrospective effect without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the issues involved in both the petitions are same, with consent of the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 9(6)(a) of the OST Act. Cancellation of registration certificate under the OST Act prior to cancellation of the registration certificate under the CST Act is illegal. Cancellation of registration certificate under the CST Act is also not in accordance with law. Cancellation of registration certificates with retrospective effect is also not permissible under law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on some judicial pronouncements. Mr. Dalei, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the petitioner itself has admitted that during the three consecutive financial years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 there was no transaction of purchase or sale and the petitioner filed nil returns for those three years both under the OST Act and the CST Act. This being the factual position, no illegality has been committed by the STO in cancelling the registration certificates issued to the petitioner under the OST Act and the CST Act so also the revisional authority is fully justified in upholding the action of the STO. He further submitted that the authority granting registration certificate has the power to cancel the same as per section 22 of the Genera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealer for three consecutive years all together was nil, certificate of registration is liable to be cancelled under section 9(6)(a) of the OST Act. It was also argued that the petitioner nowhere in the writ petitions has stated as to how it has been prejudiced by retrospective cancellation of registration certificate. The petitioner has nowhere stated that it has effected any inter-State transaction even after cancellation of its registration certificate under the OST Act making it liable to pay tax under the CST Act. Hence, it is immaterial if the registration certificate under the OST Act has been cancelled prior to cancellation of registration certificate under the CST Act. Mr. Paikray, learned counsel for the petitioner, has advanced several grounds challenging the orders of the STO by which registration certificates of the petitioner have been cancelled under section 9(6)(b) of the OST Act and section 7(4)(b) of the CST Act with effect from April 1, 1999. But the fact which remains undisputed is that the petitioner filed nil returns for three consecutive financial years, i.e., 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 on the ground that there was no transaction of purchase and sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate only when he is liable to pay the tax under section 4 of the OST Act. Section 9A(1) says, any dealer whose gross turnover during a period not exceeding 12 months exceeds Rs. 10,000, may, notwithstanding that he is not liable to pay tax under section 4 can apply for voluntary registration under the OST Act. Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 9A says that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the applicant is liable to pay tax under section 4, he shall grant him the certificate of registration under section 9 notwithstanding the fact that the application has been made under sub-section (1) for voluntary registration. Thus, when the dealer becomes liable to pay tax under section 4, he ceases to be a dealer registered under section 9A of the OST Act and shall be treated as a dealer registered under section 9 of the OST Act. In the present case, initially, registration under section 9A of the OST Act was granted to the petitioner, as he was not liable to pay tax under section 4 of the OST Act at the time of granting registration under section 9A of the OST Act. Subsequently, as it reveals from the assessment record maintained for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate under the CST Act is also liable to be cancelled under section 7(4)(b) of the said Act. Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any error in cancelling the registration certificates of the petitioner under the OST Act/CST Act with effect from April 1, 1999. The only ground of cancellation of registration certificates is that the petitioner had no business during the preceding three consecutive years. This being the reason for cancellation, it was always open for the petitioner to apply for fresh registration certificate whenever the condition laid down in section 4 was satisfied. There was also no bar for the petitioner even to obtain registration certificate voluntarily under section 9A of the OST Act. Similarly, there was also no bar for the petitioner to obtain registration certificate under the CST Act if it wanted to start inter-State business again. In the case at hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this court as to why such a convenient course has not been resorted to by the petitioner for obtaining a fresh registration certificate to carry on his business instead of challenging the orders of cancellation through revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation held as follows: ... in the present case the registration record of the petitioner clearly reveals that during the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 for three consecutive years the turnover is nil which is admitted by the petitioner by filing such nil returns. Therefore the action of the registering authority to cancel the certificate of registration is not unjust in the present case. Even perusal of the returns filed for 19992000 revealed that the dealer has no business during that year. Therefore, the cancellation of registration certificate even if given effect from April 1, 1999 has not affected the business of the dealer in any way. After date of hearing on September 1, 2004 and before disposal of this revision petition, on November 3, 2004 and on December 14, 2004 the petitioner has filed another two petitions stating that in the meantime he has started the business transaction by investing Rs. 3.90 lakhs with IFCAL (Idcol Ferro Chrome Alloys Limited) against EMD of a tender and Rs. 17.5 lakhs deposited to TISCO against the order for supply of materials like low ash metallurgical coke fines. If the petitioner wants to start business again nothing debars him to ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
