TMI Blog1966 (12) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee (opposite party) commenced its business as a dealer on the 3rd November, 1956, and filed an application for registration on the 16th November, 1956. The authorities concerned, after making usual enquiries and verifications, etc., issued the certificate of registration on the 14th May, 1957. The certificate was in Form 11 prescribed under the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949, and though the date of registration was mentioned in the first paragraph of the certificate, it was further stated in the second paragraph that the dealer was liable to pay tax on sales made from the 3rd November, 1956, the date of commencement of the business. The petitioner applied for exemption from payment of the tax for the period from the 3rd November, 1956, to the 14th May, 1957, on the ground that the department had delayed in issuing the registration certificate. The Sales Tax Officer, by his order dated the 18th May, 1957, rejected this prayer observing that "the delay has occurred due to the non-co-operative attitude of the firm as will be evident from the records". The petitioner then filed a revision before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who confirmed the order of the Sales Tax Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of section 14A of the Act, the liability to sales tax should not have been fixed retrospectively, and gave the following direction: "In view of the reasons given above I would direct that the date of issue of registration certificate should be the date on which the liability for payment of sales tax should take effect." But he also observed that if the dealer had contravened the provisions of section 14A of the Act, action under that section could be taken. 3.. The order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is not very clear as to whether as a proposition of law he held that it would be illegal to fix a date of liability to sales tax from a date prior to the date of actual registration, or else, whether on a question of propriety he held that, in view of the finding of the Commissioner in revision that there was no delay on the part of the dealer in applying for registration and his granting him relief under section 15A, it was not proper to fix the liability for sales tax on the assessee from any date prior to the actual date of registration. 4. The Member, Board of Revenue, however, thought that the three questions formulated above arise out of the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall not carry on business as a dealer without possessing a registration certificate. The Act could not have possibly contemplated that as soon as the dealer applies for the certificate he should suspend his business until the certificate is actually issued to him. Hence from the date on which the certificate is applied for till the date on which the certificate is actually issued a dealer must necessarily be contravening the provisions of subsection (1) of section 9 through no fault of his own. Neither in the Act, nor in the rules, is there any express provision to the effect that a registration certificate when granted shall take retrospective effect from the date of the application. 6.. There are, however, certain provisions in the Act which show clearly that the Legislature was fully aware of the time-lag mentioned above and made special provisions for special circumstances. Thus sub-section (5) of section 13 says that if the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax and has nevertheless wilfully failed to apply for registration, or having applied for registration failed to supply any particulars or information required by the authority, he may as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the issue or non-issue of a notice under section 13. But, from the facts of that case, as narrated in the judgment, it is not clear as to whether on the date of the assessment the dealer had become a registered dealer. He had applied for registration on the 2nd January, 1948, and when a surprise visit was paid by the officers of the department on the 24th September, 1948, it was found that he had been carrying on business for a long time with a gross turnover which exceeded the registrable limit fixed by the statute. Hence he was assessed for the period from 1st July, 1947, to 30th September, 1948. But it appears that he was assessed as an unregistered dealer and hence the learned Judges further held that he was not liable to pay penalty under subsection (5) of section 13. 9.. Here, however, we are faced with a peculiar situation. It is not challenged that from the 3rd November, 1956, the dealer became liable to apply for registration inasmuch as the gross turnover exceeded the limit fixed by section 4 of the Act. But he submitted his application for registration only on the 16th November, 1956, and the certificate was issued to him on the 14th May, 1957. At the time of making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hile discussing the liability of the dealer under section 4 of the Act. The various sections mentioned by me, namely 13(5), 14A and 15A, seem to form part of a scheme which is primarily meant, while punishing a dishonest dealer, to give the maximum concession to an honest dealer whose registration certificate is held up by the department through no fault of his own. This seems to be the main reason why in Form II of the Rules the assessing authority is given wide discretion to fix a date for liability to pay sales tax different from the date of the actual issue of the registration certificate. The officer concerned may fix a date of liability from the date on which the dealer became liable to be registered or he may fix a later date according to the various circumstances mentioned above. 10.. In the present case, the Sales Tax Officer recorded in the registration certificate that the liability to pay tax accrued from the 3rd November, 1956, because he was of the view that the dealer was mainly to blame for the delay in granting the certificate due to his nonco-operating attitude. But when this finding was reversed by the Commissioner and the dealer was completely exonerated from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
