Judgment :- (1) The petitioner, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on business of manufacturing HDPE/PP Woven, Fabrics, Sacks, Bags, Strips and Tapes from various plastic raw materials, namely, HDPE/ PD Granules, Master batch Granules, has challenged the order dated 23rd July, 2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Fairlie Place Charge, Kolkata, the respondent No.1, the order dated 31st December, 2007 passed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle, Kolkata, the respondent No. 2 and the order passed in revision dated 17th October, 2008 by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kolkata, respondent No.3. (2) The facts in brief are that the petitioner imported one plastic extrusion machine. In order to import the said goods into West Bengal, the petitioner applied for two way bills before the respondent No.1. After being satisfied that the machinery was for the purpose of manufacturing activities the said respondent issued two way bills. The imported machinery was installed in the factory at Howrah. Since in the way bills there were mistakes regarding value, by letter dated 3rd June, 2007 same was brought to the notice of the Sales Tax Authorities for rectification. Thereafter, since way bills were issued for import of various machinery from outside West Bengal and since purchases were made at concessional rate of tax, on 23rd July, 2007 the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.1 for issue of "C" Form for those purchases. By order dated 23rd July, 2007 the respondent No.1 rejected the said application for "C" Form on the ground that the items against which "C" Form was sought for are not covered by the registration certificate issued to the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") . (3) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23rd July, 2007, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the respondent No. 2, who by order dated 31st December, 2007 confirmed the said order passed by the respondent No.1. Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a further revision petition before the respondent No.3. During its pendency on 20th February, 2008 the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.1 for amending the certificate of registration with effect from the date of issuance of way bill, that is, 27th April, 2007 or from the date of first purchase. Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a further revision petition before the respondent No.3. During its pendency on 20th February, 2008 the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.1 for amending the certificate of registration with effect from the date of issuance of way bill, that is, 27th April, 2007 or from the date of first purchase. In the application for amendment the petitioner stated about the nature of the goods manufactured in its factory and the raw materials required for manufacture. (4) According to the petitioner, the revision petition came up before the respondent No. 3 for hearing. At the time of hearing of the revision petition before the respondent No.3, petitioner in support of his argument relied on a judgment in Pulak Patodia and Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors., reported in 42 STA 11, (Calcutta). Grievance of the petitioner is, the respondent No. 3 without appreciating the facts and the purport of Section 7(4)(a) of the Act and without taking into consideration the law laid down in Pulak Patodia (supra), by an order dated 17th October, 2007 rejected the application. (5) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the actions of the respondents are just and proper. It is submitted if an application for amendment for certificate of registration is filed and if directed it shall be considered in accordance with law. (6) The question is whether it is mandatory for a dealer to file an application for amendment of the certificate for registration. (7) In order to appreciate the issue, it is appropriate to refer to Section 7(4) (a) of the Act, which is as under:- "7. (6) The question is whether it is mandatory for a dealer to file an application for amendment of the certificate for registration. (7) In order to appreciate the issue, it is appropriate to refer to Section 7(4) (a) of the Act, which is as under:- "7. Registration of dealers.-(4) A certificate of registration granted under this section may -(a) either on the application of the dealer to whom it has been granted, or, where no such application has been made, after due notice to the dealer, be amended.by the authority granting it if he is satisfied that by reason of the registered dealer having changed the name, place or nature of his business or the class or classes of goods in which he carries on business or for any other reason the certificate of registration granted to him requires to be amended;........." (Emphasis supplied) (8) Therefore, it is clear from a reading of Section 7(4)(a) of the Act that even if no application is filed by the dealer, the authority has been granted the power or authority to amend the certificate of registration after due notice to the dealer. The language of Section 7(4) (a) is clear. There is no ambiguity. That there are no fetters on the eventualities is evident from the words "for any other reason." (9) In the instant case, since the authorities knew about the importation of the goods as evident from the way bills and as the petitioner had applied for "C" Form, the authorities particularly, the respondent No.1 ought to have exercised their discretion in a judicious manner conferred under Section 7(4)(a) regarding amendment of the certificate of registration from 27th April, 2007, that is the date of first purchase. That an amendment can be made without filing a formal application is clear in view of law laid down in Pulak Patodia (supra). Therefore, the action of the respondent No.1 in not amending the registration certificate under the Act from the date of first purchase and the action in refusing to grant of "C" Form are not just and proper. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside and quashed. (10) The writ petition is, thus, allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to amend the certificate of registration from the date of first purchase and shall issue "C" Form by 31st March, 2009. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside and quashed. (10) The writ petition is, thus, allowed. The respondent No.1 is directed to amend the certificate of registration from the date of first purchase and shall issue "C" Form by 31st March, 2009. (11) Since the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission without calling for affidavits from the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by them. No order as to costs.