9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt made an application for registration in form I-A under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short "the 1954 Act") for sale of aluminium tower bolt manufactured by him. Registration as prayed for by the applicant was allowed after the Inspector of Commercial Taxes visited the applicant's factory where the manufacture of aluminium tower bolt was going on. The Inspector not only saw the finished product but also saw the purchase bill of the raw materials and the sale bill of the finished product. Thereafter the Commercial Tax Officer went through the report submitted by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes and also visited the workshop personally. It is after these inspections and examinations that registration under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, was granted by the Commercial Tax Officer. The validity of the registration certificate was given from June 17, 1992. Security under section 5(3)(c) of the 1954 Act was also imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer and the applicant complied with the said order. 3.. Thereafter the petitioner continued to file monthly returns under the 1954 Act. Assessment for the period up to March 31, 1994 was made under section 9A of the 1954 Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995, the applicant, as advised by his lawyer, addressed a letter to the Public Relation Officer, Directorate of Commercial Taxes, Government of West Bengal to ascertain whether aluminium tower bolt comes under the 1954 Act or under the 1941 Act. When he did not get any reply, he filed, as advised, an application for registration under the 1941 Act on April 17, 1995. The advocate for the applicant could not appear on the date fixed for such hearing and the registering authority passed an ex parte order rejecting the petitioner's application without entering into the merits of the application. The applicant filed an application for revision against this order dated April 28, 1995 before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section on November 4, 1995. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on May 21, 1996 confirming the impugned order. The applicant has come before this Tribunal against this order dated May 21, 1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Circle. 7.. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the respondent No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes has submitted that as a result of mere application for registration, it cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong advice of an advocate but also because of the wrong decision of the registering authority in granting registration under a wrong Act and of the assessing authority in making assessment under a wrong Act. He further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner should have considered that the applicant was prejudiced because of non-appearance of his advocate and the Deputy Commissioner was not precluded from entering into the merit of the application. 9.. Mr. G.C. Mookerji, learned advocate for the applicant submitted in the course of his argument that the applicant has been seriously prejudiced by the careless and negligent action of the respondents and has been put to serious trouble because of their nonapplication of mind. He pointed out that when the applicant filed an application for registration under the 1954 Act, he might have committed a mistake due to a wrong advice given by his tax consultant but it is not a fact that his application for registration was granted by the registering authority blindly. The registering authority allowed his registration after the Inspector of Commercial Taxes visited his factory. The Inspector not only saw the finished product but also examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a dealer who is liable to pay tax cannot carry on business without a registration certificate and he is liable to be exposed to penalty for default. The applicant, who had earlier moved the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Howrah Circle and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Howrah Circle for rectification of the earlier defective order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated August 12, 1992, had filed an application for registration mentioning the details of his activities and business. Even if the lawyer did not turn up on the date of hearing, the registering authority, who had received information about the existence of the applicant's business from the applicant himself, should not have casually rejected the application. It is expected that on receiving such an application, the Inspector or the Commercial Tax Officer would visit the place of business of the applicant and submit a report on his findings. Registration is not granted across the table without such verification or on the basis of best judgment as submitted by the respondents in their affidavit. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes also did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Howrah Circle found that the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Howrah Circle was quite reasonable and justified and he therefore rejected the revision petition. 12.. As far as the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Section dated April 28, 1995 is concerned, Mr. Goswami argued that in the absence of the lawyer for the applicant, the registering authority decided the case ex parte relying on the best of his judgment by rejecting the petition. He also submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Central Section's decision on May 21, 1996 was an appropriate one because the only ground for rejection of the application for new registration by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was non-appearance on the part of the applicant on the date fixed for hearing. The petitioner neither mentioned in the grounds of revision about the reason which prevented him from appearing before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Section on the appointed date nor did he satisfy the Deputy Commissioner about the cause of such non-appearance even at the time of hearing before him in the revisional forum. When the petitioner had nothing to say on the ground on which his p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax liabilities. That is the reason why there is a provision of penalty to be imposed on a dealer who is required to be registered but fails to get himself so registered. Once he got the information from the dealer that he was carrying on his business of manufacturing aluminium tower bolt he should not have dropped the application by rejecting it merely on account of absence of the applicant or his representative on the date of hearing. It was expected that he would follow it up by arranging inspection etc., so that the dealer does not escape registration. In this view of the matter the order of the Assistant Commissioner was inappropriate and erroneous. The Deputy Commissioner's order dated May 21, 1996 deals only with the absence of the lawyer on the basis of which the order of the Assistant Commissioner was passed. He also did not consider it necessary to pursue the matter further. This order also was similarly erroneous and inappropriate. 15. We, therefore, set aside order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Section dated April 28, 1995 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Central Section dated May 21, 1996 and direct that the original certificate of registration gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
