TMI Blog1952 (2) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied on 29th September, 1944, under Section 7 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, for registration of his name as his gross turnover was Rs. 15 lacs for the year 1943-44. The petitioner represented himself as a wholesale dealer of shellac and other articles. Enquiry was made whether the figures given represented sale inside or outside Bihar. The petitioner submitted a statement showing that out of his gross turnover of Rs. 15 lacs, a sum of Rs. 50,000 represented his sale in Bihar. A certificate of registration No. 163 MN was accordingly issued and the petitioner was required to submit returns quarterly. On the expiry of the quarter ending 31st December, 1944, the petitioner submitted a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 72,873-6-0 and the taxable turnover as nil. From the accounts produced and the statement made by the petitioner's agent and the results of local enquiry, it appeared that agents were engaged by the firm for selling or supplying goods outside Bihar. A notice under Section 20 (4) of the Act was issued by the Sales Tax Officer to the petitioner asking him to show cause why his certifi- cate of registration should not be cancelled. After considering the objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of law. The Board after hearing the parties observed that the two main grounds urged had been duly considered in its order dated 15th Decem- ber, 1947, and that there was no point of law requiring reference to the High Court. A copy of the Board's order dated 31st July, 1948, is enclosed Ex. 1 with M.J.C. No. 150 of 1948. As asked for, the Board now refers the following two questions of law for decision: (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be registered as a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the Sales Tax Officer has any jurisdiction under Sec- tion 20(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, to cancel the petitioner's registration certificate after having obtained the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and not of the Commissioner. The reasons for the cancellation of the registration certificate of the petitioner by the Sales Tax Officer and for rejecting the petitions of revision by the Deputy Commissioner and the Board are briefly sum- marised below: Question No. 1.-"Dealer" as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act means any person who carries on the business of selling or supplying goods in Bihar, whether for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluded and were delegated to the Deputy Commissioner on 21st September, 1944, i.e., before the order of review was passed on 30th September, 1945. It appears therefore that the Deputy Commissioner had the necessary power of sanction in the matter and the sanction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax was not necessary. B.C. Ghosh, for the assessee. Government Advocate, for the Province of Bihar. JUDGMENT RAMASWAMI and SARJOO PROSAD, JJ.-In this case two questions have been referred: (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to be register- ed as a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944; and (2) Whether the Sales Tax Officer has any jurisdic- tion under Section 20(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, to cancel the petitioner's registration certificate after having obtained the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and not of the Commissioner. The material facts are that on 29th September, 1944, the petitioner had applied for registration of his name on the ground that his gross turnover was about Rs. 25 lacs for the year 1943-44. On further enquiry the petitioner said that out of the gross turnover a sum of Rs. 86,868-7-0 represented the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of this gross turnover a sum of Rs. 86,868 and odd represented the sale of shellac in Bihar. For the quarter ending 31st December, 1944, the petitioner submitted a return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 4,62,000 and odd and taxable turnover to be nil. For the next quarter ending 31st March, 1945, the petitioner submitted another return showing a gross turnover of Rs. 5,13,000 and odd and taxable turnover to be nil. It was claimed on his behalf that shellac worth Rs. 5,02,782 was despatched outside Bihar and the balance worth Rs. 10,324 was sold to the registered dealers. It is evident that for the two quarters ending 31st December, 1944, and 31st March, 1945, the petitioner had sold goods worth Rs. 12,509 and odd in Bihar, though the major part of his turn- over represented sale or supply of goods outside Bihar. The Sales Tax Officer cancelled the certificate of the petitioner mainly on the ground that he did not pay any tax for the quarters ending 31st December, 1944, and 31st March, 1945. But on a proper construction of the material sections of the Act it is manifest that a dealer is entitled to be granted certificate though he actually pays no tax on any part of his turnove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Bihar were bona fide or otherwise has no bearing on the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted registration certificate under Section 7(1). If the sales in Bihar did actually take place the petitioner is entitled to be granted certificate even though the motive of the petitioner might be to conduct a large part of his sale outside the State and which sale is exempted from tax- ation under Section 5 of the Act. Another reason has also been given by the Board of Revenue for refusing to grant certificate to the petitioner. It is said that "the definition of a dealer clearly implied and excluded an isolated or occasional transaction" and in any case "the occasional transaction did not alter the character of the business of the dealer who is exporting shellac to Calcutta." This reasoning appears to be unsound since the business of the petitioner in the present case is to sell or supply shellac though major part of the business takes place in the shape of export of shellac outside the State. The circum- stance that in the course of the same business the petitioner makes a few occasional sales inside the State does not alter the character of the business of the deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
