Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 182 (CAL)

PULAK PATODIA v. A. C. C. T. , CENTRAL SECTION

2003-04-09

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

body2003
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) BY this application, the petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents particularly respondent No. 4 to recall and/or cancel the orders particularly the order dated May 29, 2002 passed by the respondent No. 4 being annexure "p8" to the writ application and to grant amendment of the registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act from the inception or at least from the date of first purchase, i. e. , March 25, 1999 in respect of coverage of goods and materials being raw materials and packing materials for the manufacture of detergent. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are carrying on business, inter alia, of manufacture of detergent. They filed an application for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central section on January 27, 1999 for the purpose of manufacturing detergent. Together with the said application the petitioner also filed a list of raw materials and packing materials which would be required for the manufacture of detergent. ( 3 ) IN connection with such registration, the petitioners were given hearing on February 10, 1999 before the grant of registration certificate. According to petitioners, in course of such hearing, the dealer handed over to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section a list of raw materials and packing materials which would be necessary for production of detergents. But without allowing any coverage for purchase of such raw materials, the certificate of registration under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was granted on February 20, 1999 and the said certificate was received by the petitioners on March 3, 1999. The petitioners almost simultaneously, received the registration certificate under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. ( 4 ) AFTER receiving the registration certificate, the dealer posted a reminder letter for amendment of the registration certificate. The said letter was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, under certificate of posting on March 5, 1999. The petitioners applied for way-bill before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, for importing raw materials referred to hereinabove which he had already prayed for incorporation in the registration certificate before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central section. The petitioners applied for way-bill before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, for importing raw materials referred to hereinabove which he had already prayed for incorporation in the registration certificate before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central section. ( 5 ) ON June 7, 2000 the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, for issuing "c" forms against the purchase made by the said dealer from places outside West Bengal. While disposing of the application for the issuance of "c" forms, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, ordered the Inspector to pay a visit and draw a report about the nature of the business of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the Inspector, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge inspected the place of business of the dealer and gave a report which was duly submitted before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. ( 6 ) ON December 21, 2000 the petitioner further filed an application for "c" form before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge and subsequently, on January 17, 2001, he further filed an application seeking amendment of the Registration Certificate for incorporation of such raw materials which was earlier referred to at the time of disposal of the application for registration. ( 7 ) ON February 2, 2001 the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, passed an order for amendment of the Registration Certificate with effect from January 17, 2001 but he did not refer to the names of the items which should have been incorporated in the said registration certificate after due amendment of the same. Against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. The said application was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on June 7, 2001. ( 8 ) IN pursuance of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, passed an order specifying the items which should be included in the certificate of registration and such order was passed on August 2, 2001 and the date of effect of such amendment was given from January 17, 2001. ( 8 ) IN pursuance of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, New Market Charge, passed an order specifying the items which should be included in the certificate of registration and such order was passed on August 2, 2001 and the date of effect of such amendment was given from January 17, 2001. ( 9 ) AGAINST the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, the petitioner again preferred a revision application before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and the said application was disposed of by order dated October 16, 2001 by upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. ( 10 ) DISSATISFIED with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner moved before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. ( 11 ) THE Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated May 29, 2002 disposed of the application of the petitioner by affirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. ( 12 ) BEING dissatisfied the petitioners have come up with the instant writ application. ( 13 ) MR. Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that so far as the registration certificate is concerned, the main object of the statute is to give some tax benefits or concessional rate of taxation for the registered dealers over the unregistered dealers. Thus the Registration Certificate should be liberally construed. ( 14 ) THE petitioners state that they have brought into West Bengal raw materials and packing materials, which will be of absolute necessity for the manufacture of detergents, by dint of the waybills which the respondents have issued from time to time after making due and proper verification for the same. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the respondent-authorities very well knew that the petitioners are required to bring raw materials into West Bengal since the inception of registration certificate and the allegation in the order dated February 2, 2001 passed by respondent No. 1 that there was no transaction of the raw materials at the relevant point of time when the registration certificate was issued was absolutely erroneous. ( 15 ) THE petitioners thus submit that there was no fault on the part of the petitioners in not receiving the coverage of the goods and due to the mistake of the Sales Tax Department, the petitioners would suffer. ( 16 ) MR. ( 15 ) THE petitioners thus submit that there was no fault on the part of the petitioners in not receiving the coverage of the goods and due to the mistake of the Sales Tax Department, the petitioners would suffer. ( 16 ) MR. Bhattacharjee further contends that the authorities having given registration certificate from a particular date, there is no reason why the amendment should be effected from a subsequent date when the object of the registration is to get coverage. ( 17 ) THIS application has been opposed by Mrs. Roy appearing on behalf of the respondent contending that the petitioner took a false plea that application for amendment was sent by certificate of posting. She contends that the authorities below rightly allowed the amendment from the date of filing of the real application and not from an earlier date. ( 18 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the registration certificate having been already granted, there was no just ground for refusal of the amendment from the date of such registration when there is no dispute that the materials for which coverage has been claimed are absolutely necessary for preparation of the detergents. ( 19 ) THERE is no dispute that for the purpose of amendment of registration certificate it is not the law that a formal application is essentially required. Even without filing formal application, amendment can be made. The object of the registration being to give relief to the petitioner for the purchase of materials from places outside the State, there is no just ground for refusal of the amendment from the date of first purchase of petitioner. Mrs. Roy frankly submits before this Court that if the amendment is effected from the date of first purchase, there will be no loss of revenue. ( 20 ) UNDER such circumstances, I find that the authorities below acted illegally in allowing amendment only from the date of the formal application, subsequently, filed by the petitioner. I thus set aside the orders impugned and direct the respondent authorities to incorporate the amendment from the date of first purchase of materials pursuant to the registration granted by the respondent authority. ( 21 ) THE writ application is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. I thus set aside the orders impugned and direct the respondent authorities to incorporate the amendment from the date of first purchase of materials pursuant to the registration granted by the respondent authority. ( 21 ) THE writ application is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be, however, no order as to costs.