TMI Blog1974 (12) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orce on 1st January, 1960, which date is referred to in the said Act as "the appointed day". Under the said Act a dealer whose turnover of all sales or of all purchases in the particular year specified in section 3 exceeds the limit laid down in sub-section (4) of that section becomes liable to pay tax under the said Act. Under section 22 no dealer, while being liable to pay tax under the said Act, is to carry on business as a dealer unless he possesses a valid certificate of registration as provided by the said Act. Under section 77(1)(b) any registration certificate issued by or under any of the laws repealed by the said Act, which was in force immediately before 1st January, 1960, is on that date to be deemed, so far as the liability to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3 is concerned, to be a certificate of registration issued under the said Act. One of the Acts repealed by the said Act was the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. Under rule 7(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, a dealer having places of business within the jurisdiction of different registering authorities is required to make an application for registration separately to each such authority in respect of his plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , set-off or refund under the said rule 40(1) a dealer has to comply with certain conditions, one of these conditions being that he is to furnish to the Sales Tax Officer on or after the appointed day, namely, 1st January, 1960, but before 26th March, 1960, a statement in form 32 where the selling dealer has recovered from him any amount by way of tax under any earlier law, that is, under any of the Acts repealed by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Such a dealer also would not be entitled to any such drawback, set-off or refund unless he had maintained a true account in chronological order of all the purchases of goods made by him, and which were held by him on 1st January, 1960, showing in such accounts the particulars specified by the said rule 45(1). Turning now to the facts of this case, the respondent-company was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The head office of the respondent-company was at Bombay. It had also a branch office at Ahmedabad and in respect of the said branch office it had applied for and obtained a separate certificate of registration as it was required to do under the statutory provisions referred to above. In the application for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come the capital of the State of Gujarat. In appeal the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax confirmed the view taken by the Sales Tax Officer. In second appeal to the Tribunal the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the right to claim set-off belonged to the head office of the respondent-company and allowed the appeal. Arising out of the said judgment of the Tribunal, at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the question which we have set out earlier has been referred to us. Before us Mr. Dada, the learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the scheme of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, requires that there should be a separate registration certificate in respect of the branch of a dealer situate within the jurisdiction of a Sales Tax Officer different from the Sales Tax Officer who exercises jurisdiction over the area in which the head office of the dealer is situate. In such a case the head office and the branch have both to file separate returns under rule 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, or if permission to file consolidated returns has been given by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under the proviso to section 32(1) of the said Act, then consolidated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proceeded upon the footing as if by obtaining such separate certificate of registration a separate registered dealer has come into being. As set out above, under rule 7(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, a dealer who applies for registration as a dealer has to make an application for registration separately to each of the Sales Tax Officers in whose jurisdiction his several additional places of business are situate. The registration obtained in respect of such additional place of business stands on an entirely different footing from the obligation cast upon a dealer by section 22 of the said Act to get himself registered if he becomes liable to pay tax by reason of his turnover exceeding the limits specified in section 3(4) of the said Act. If a dealer's turnover does not exceed the relevant limit specified in the said section 3(4), the dealer would not be entitled to get himself registered. This requirement, however, does not apply to an additional place of business of a dealer. For obtaining his initial certificate of registration a dealer has to show that the combined turnover of his head office and its branch or branches exceeds the specified limit. Thereafter he has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that the respondentfirm should be treated as an unregistered dealer in respect of its places of business at Wara Seoni and Chhindwara as the certificate of registration which it had obtained did not cover those two places. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court observed (at page 69): "It is plain on an examination of the relevant sections and statutory rules that the certificate of registration is granted with reference to the place of business or places of business of the dealer and not with reference to the whole area of the State though for the purpose of determining the liability of the dealer, his turnover in respect of all places of business in the State including those not mentioned in the registration certificate is to be taken into consideration. It follows therefore that if a registered dealer carries on business in places not disclosed in the registration certificate he will have to be treated as an unregistered dealer vis-a-vis those places." The reliance by the applicant upon this case is misplaced. The Supreme Court did not lay down that there were two dealers, one a registered dealer and the other an unregistered dealer. All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
