9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place of business is at R.R. Tower, B.T. Road, near-Jain School, Ara Sadar, District-Bhojpur, and has got more places of business in the State of Bihar, situated in different circles of Commercial Taxes, including Kishanganj Circle. The further contention is that the petitioner is a registered Dealer, under the Act having VAT TIN No. 10050916069 and under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 having CST TIN No. 10050883175 and under the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale therein Act, 1993 having ET TIN No. 10050784293. In the year 2009, the petitioner opened its first retail store at Ara and got it registered under Shahabad Circle of Commercial Taxes, under the Act having VAT TIN No. 10163720053; thereafter, it opened another branch at Begusarai, which was also registered under Shahabad Circle vide amendment in the said certificate of Registration. The petitioner, later on, opened several retail store at different places in the State of Bihar and, therefore, applied for registration under Rule 3(9)(a) of The Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005(hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2005) and as per the direction of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Kishanganj was not a registered company from the date of its opening till 05.02.2015, when it came to be added in the Vat amended certificate dated 05.02.2015(Annexure-1) and the order dated 23.01.2015, which is under challenge had already been passed prior to coming of Annexure-1 into existence and the petitioner's company at Kishanganj was an unregistered company from the date of inspection i.e., 06.12.2014 till 05.02.2015 and therefore, the penalty order passed under Section 28(1) of the Act is a valid order and well within jurisdiction. The further contention of the respondents is that the representative of the petitioner never disclosed about the registered status of the company nor they produced such evidence that original registration certificate was submitted in the Patliputra Circle for the purpose of amendment and on 22.01.2015 no one appeared before the prescribed authority. Thus from the date of inspection till the date of passing of the order the prescribed authority was never made to know that the company is a registered dealer and original registration certificate has been submitted in Patliputra Circle for the purpose of amendment. Learned counsel for the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period; and the prescribed authority may, direct that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the amount of tax so assessed, a sum of 100/- rupees for every day of the period during which the dealer failed to apply of registration or failed to furnish any particulars or information required for the purpose of Section 19 or an amount equal to the amount of tax assessed whichever is higher; Provided that no proceeding for such assessment shall be initiated except before the expiry of two years from the expiry of the period to which it relates; Provided further that a proceeding initiated under this sub-section shall be completed within a period of four years from the date of initiation." We may further notice the provision contained in sub-rule (9) (a) of Rule 3 of Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, which reads thus: "(9) (a) In case of such dealers who have got more places of business than one, situated in different circles in Bihar, or in case of dealers having no fixed place of business in Bihar and who sales goods inside the State either direct or through Agents or Salesmen or otherwise, shall apply before the Commissioner or before the officer specially authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 23 of the Act, whereupon the competent authority issued amended certificate of registration, in favour of the petitioner on 05.02.2015, wherein Kishanganj Branch of V. MART RETAIL LTD. is also mentioned. We also find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner or its representative never informed the inspecting officers on the date of inspection about the dealer being centralized registered in Patliputra Circle because the inspection report which is on record vide Annexure-5 mentions in column (v) (k) that the In-charge of the business premises informed that the dealer is centralized registered; thus in that view of the matter the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Kishanganj Circle, exceeded his jurisdiction and illegally initiated Case No. 01/14-15 and passed the order dated 23.01.2015. We would also like to notice the third proviso of Section 19 of the Act, which is a deeming clause. It says that if the dealer applies for grant of certificate of registration in the prescribed manner and that the application is duly filled in, as aforesaid, he shall be deemed to be in possession of a valid certificate of registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
