JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - In this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated January 9, 1997 at annexure 4 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, Cuttack, rejecting his prayer for registration as dealer under special circumstances Under Rule 6A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a contractor engaged in execution of contract work primarily consisting of white-washing, painting, repairs and renovation of buildings and houses. It has been awarded with work orders by various departmental authorities for execution of periodical paintings, repairs and renovation works. It is presently registered with Cuttack I, Central Circle bearing registration number CUIC 1780 under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and No. CUCIC 1332 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Besides executing works contract within the territorial jurisdiction of Cuttack I, Central Circle, it has undertaken works in Koraput I Circle, Jeypore, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul and Puri II Circle details of which are as follows : Sl. No. Financial year Authorities from whom contractual amount received. Amount received Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 1 1990-91 NALCO, Angul Nil Assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul, vide order of assessment dated March 5, 1993. 2 1991-92 NALCO, Angul Rs. 7,36,059 Assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Dhenkanal Circle, Angul, vide order of assessment dated March 5, 1993. 3 1992-93 H.A.L. Sunabeda Rs. 10,00,834 Assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Koraput I Circle, Jeypore, vide order of assessment 4 1993-94 H.A.L. Sunabeda Rs. 3,39,107 dated March 29, 1994. Petitioner appeared and produced accounts for assessment before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I, Central Circle, Cuttack - no order of assessment passed as yet. 5 1994-95 (i) L.I.C.I. Divisional Office Cuttack. Rs. 1,30,435 Petitioner appeared and produced accounts for assessment before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I, Central Circle Cuttack- no order of, assessment passed as yet. (ii) S.E. Railway Khurda Road Rs. 6,97,241 (iii) H.A.L., Sunabeda Rs. 6,77,602 Total contractual amounts.... Rs. 15,05,278 Because of notices being issued by different Sales Tax Officers for the purpose of assessment in respect of business carried on by it in the respective territorial jurisdiction, it becomes difficult on its part to appear at those places with the books of accounts for the purpose of assessment. 6,97,241 (iii) H.A.L., Sunabeda Rs. 6,77,602 Total contractual amounts.... Rs. 15,05,278 Because of notices being issued by different Sales Tax Officers for the purpose of assessment in respect of business carried on by it in the respective territorial jurisdiction, it becomes difficult on its part to appear at those places with the books of accounts for the purpose of assessment. Besides this, even though the contract work undertaken by it has already been completed and it had already left the sites, notices are issued subsequently by the Sales Tax Officers concerned for the purpose of assessment which puts it in difficulty as it has to move from place to place covering long distances to attend the assessment proceedings. In these circumstances, it made an application at annexure 2 Under Rule 6A of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") to the Commissioner of Sales Tax seeking permission for registration under special circumstances. The Commissioner by the impugned order has rejected the application on the following grounds relying on a judgment of this Court in P. Venugopal & Brothers v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, Cuttack [1974] 33 STC 372 : (i) Rule 6A is primarily meant for dealers having operation in small-scale and of seasonal nature and when the turnover is substantial and the area of operation of the petitioner is widespread benefit Under Rule 6A is not allowable. (ii) Since the petitioner is carrying on works contract at different places and in far-flung areas, it would be administratively difficult on the part of a specific circle to monitor the works contract undertaken by it. (iii) There are thousands of registered works contractors executing the works throughout the State and monitoring of such works under execution at different places in the State is an onerous task and if the application of the petitioner for registration under special circumstances is allowed, scenario of tax monitoring would be detrimental to the interest of the revenue. 3. The petitioner has sought for permission for registration "under special circumstances" as provided Under Rule 6A. 3. The petitioner has sought for permission for registration "under special circumstances" as provided Under Rule 6A. It would be relevant to extract the said rule : "Where a dealer has no fixed place of business in the State of Orissa but sells or supplies or purchases goods either direct or through travelling agents or salesmen, or having one or more places of business in the State of Orissa, sells or supplies or purchases goods in circles other than those in which such places of business are situate, the Commissioner may notwithstanding anything contained in these rules by general OB special order in writing direct that such dealer shall be registered in a circle constituted by the State Government and specified by him in such order." Section 9 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") lays down that no dealer shall, while being liable u/s 4 to pay tax under the Act, carry on business as dealer unless he has been registered under the Act and possesses a registration certificate. Rule 6-A of the Rules occurs in Chapter IV of the Rules deals with registration of dealers. Rule 6 lays down the procedure for making an application for registration. Rule 7 states that when the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the applicant is a bona fide dealer and has furnished the correct particulars or information or evidence as required by him and has duly complied with other requirements, he shall register the dealer and shall issue a certificate of registration. The scheme under the Act and the Rules is that the dealer liable under the Act to pay tax is required to be registered in each and every circle where he carries on business. Rule 6-A is, however, an exception to it which provides that the Commissioner may notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules by general or special order in writing direct that such dealer shall be registered in a circle constituted by the State Government and specified by him in such order. The aforesaid Rule 6-A gives wide discretion to the Commissioner to make an order that the applicant-dealer shall be registered in a particular circle. The discretion is not unguided or unfettered. It has to be exercised on sound judicial principle. It cannot be an arbitrary exercise of the power. The aforesaid Rule 6-A gives wide discretion to the Commissioner to make an order that the applicant-dealer shall be registered in a particular circle. The discretion is not unguided or unfettered. It has to be exercised on sound judicial principle. It cannot be an arbitrary exercise of the power. Although there is no indication in the said rule about the factors to be considered while dealing with an application made thereunder, key to the issue has been provided in its heading which reads "registration of dealers under special circumstances" (emphasis* supplied). The special circumstances required to be satisfied for grant of registration Under Rule 6-A are as follows : (i) Where a dealer has no fixed place of business in the State of Orissa but sells or supplies (or purchases) goods either direct or through travelling agents or salesmen ; or (ii) Where a dealer having one or more places of business in the State of Orissa, sells or supplies (or purchases) goods in circles other than those in which such places of business are located. 4. "Place of business" has been defined in Rule 2(i) to mean in relation to a dealer any place where he sells or purchases goods and includes : (a) any warehouse, godown or other place where dealer stores goods, or (b) any place where a dealer processes or manufactures goods, or (c) any place where a dealer keeps his books of accounts, or (d) the place of business of an agent, where a dealer carries on business through that agent (by whatever name called). In the case at hand, the petitioner is a registered dealer within Cuttack I Central Circle. This means that it has a place of business within the jurisdiction of the said circle but it has no fixed place of business in other circles where it has undertaken works contract. May it be noted that while executing the works contract, a contractor transfers property of goods involved in the works contract on the land/building/plant or some structure of the principal and he has no place from which sales are effected. In other words, he has no place of business at the place the work is being executed by him. May it be noted that while executing the works contract, a contractor transfers property of goods involved in the works contract on the land/building/plant or some structure of the principal and he has no place from which sales are effected. In other words, he has no place of business at the place the work is being executed by him. For grant of registration, the applicant has to apply in the prescribed form II which requires him to indicate the location of place of business but as a works contractor does not have any place of business, he cannot apply for registration in respect of circles where he executes the work. To overcome this difficulty, Rule 6-A has been made so that the applicant can be registered in one circle, as directed by the Commissioner even if he has no place of business in the State of Orissa. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, let us now examine if the grounds ascribed by the Commissioner in rejecting the petitioner's application are tenable in law. Regarding the first ground, we may state that there is nothing in Rule 6-A nor in the entire scheme of registration of dealers that it would be applicable only to those dealers having operation in small-scale and of seasonal nature to the exclusion of all dealers whose turnovers are substantial. The second ground given by the Commissioner is equally vulnerable. Admittedly, the petitioner has been taking up works contract under the governmental authorities. Therefore, there is little scope on its part to suppress the transactions with such authorities. While granting registration Under Rule 6-A, a condition can be imposed that it has to furnish necessary particulars of the contract which it undertakes with any Governmental authorities or Government undertakings. In fact such conditions are being imposed by the Commissioner while granting permission Under Rule 6-A. This is evident from an order made by the Commissioner in respect of one dealer as at annexure 5. One of the conditions imposed in the said order is that for the purposes of Rules 45 and 46, the Sales Tax Officers of the circles mentioned therein shall be deemed to be the Commissioner of Sales Tax under the Rules. Rule 45 authorises the Commissioner to make a surprise visit or to give a reasonable notice to the dealer of his intention to inspect the accounts, registers, documents or stock of goods. Rule 45 authorises the Commissioner to make a surprise visit or to give a reasonable notice to the dealer of his intention to inspect the accounts, registers, documents or stock of goods. Similarly Rule 46 authorises the Commissioner to seize any books of accounts, registers or documents and retain them on the grounds mentioned therein. Moreover, in. view of the existence of provisions for deduction of tax at source from the payment to a dealer [it may be noted that after striking down Section 13AA of the Act by the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Others etc. etc., there has been amendment in the Act reintroducing the provision of deduction of tax at source] there is little chance on the part of a dealer to escape from the tax dragnet. Therefore, the second ground that it would cause administrative inconvenience on the part of a specific circle in which the dealer is undertaking works contract is not tenable. The third ground given by the Commissioner that because there are a number of registered works contractors executing works throughout the State, the scenario of monitoring would be detrimental to the interest of the revenue is unsound for the reasons mentioned above. It has to be borne in mind that Rule 6-A has been made to grant registration to a dealer who does not have a fixed place of business in Orissa or having a fixed place of business carries on activities of sale without a fixed place of business in other circles where he has undertaken the work. Therefore, the third ground ascribed by the Commissioner, if accepted, would defeat the very purpose of Rule 6-A. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner cannot be supported in law. 6. At this stage, may it be stated that the Commissioner clearly erred in relying on the judgment of this Court in P. Venugopal & Brothers [1974] 33 STC 372 to reject the petitioner's application. In that case, this Court has ruled that the discretionary power of the Commissioner Under Rule 6-A has to be exercised in a fair way. Its facts reveal that the prayer for registration Under Rule 6-A was rejected because the Commissioner found that the concerned Sales Tax Officer might not be able to exercise necessary checks in respect of the transactions of the dealer. Its facts reveal that the prayer for registration Under Rule 6-A was rejected because the Commissioner found that the concerned Sales Tax Officer might not be able to exercise necessary checks in respect of the transactions of the dealer. This Court found the said reason to be germane. The case having been decided on the basis of the peculiar facts obtaining therein, no support can be laid on that case to consider the petitioner's application made Under Rule 6-A. 7. In the result, the impugned order of the Commissioner at annexure 4 is hereby quashed. As there is no other ground available to oppose the prayer of the petitioner, the Commissioner is directed to allow its application for registration Under Rule 6-A on such terms and conditions as he deems necessary and pass appropriate orders within one month of receipt of the writ. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. P.K. Misra, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Allowed