Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
1. The dispute, in the present case, is with regard to the discharge of sales tax liability fastened on the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act 1981 (Part II). The petitioner carries on business in the district of Aurangabad, Bihar. He purchases sole raw material coal from Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Central Coalfields Limited. Coal is sold to it from various collieries which were all situated in South Bihar. The period with which we are concerned are all prior to bifurcation of the State of Bihar. Thus, we are considering the facts when South Bihar was as much part of Bihar as any.
2. The Scheme of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 at the relevant time was that where goods were notified for imposition of tax at the first point by a registered dealer then the first sale by registered dealer obliged him to realize tax on being satisfied. Once he did so then the said selling registered dealer was obliged in law to issue a statutory declaration form 9C admitting levying tax on the said transaction and calculation thereof. This form 9C was then utilized by the purchasing dealer in course of his assessment of liability to show that his goods were tax paid as under the Scheme of the Bihar Finance Act generally double taxation or taxation at multiple stages was not contemplated. Such multiple point taxation was introduced only when Value Added Tax (VAT) was introduced in the State. It would thus be seen that for a registered dealer to escape liability of sales tax on his purchase and/or sale he had to produce form 9C, evidence of having paid tax in respect of those goods.
3. In the present case, as stated above, whenever petitioner purchased coal from the two collieries above tax at the rate of 4% was required to be mandatorily deducted and deducted in fact. This exempted the petitioner from any further tax liability on the said goods provided they produce form 9C as issued by the Coal Companies. The problem starts here. Form 9C is not issued in time. For example even then petitioner is yet to receive form 9C in relation to transactions that took place almost a decade back. Regrettably, the Commercial Taxes Department of Bihar instead of proceeding against the erring selling dealer for not having discharged their obligations of issuing form 9C once they charge tax, they pursue the purchasing dealer instead for obvious reason that they would get tax collection twice where the law prohibited such calculation once from the Coal Company and then from the purchasing dealer because they were unable to produce form 9C. If they pursue the Coal Companies and persuaded them to issue form 9C, the calculation of tax would be only at the point of sale by the Coal Company with no further calculation but if they pursue the dealer then in absence of form 9C tax would be collected once again and, thus, calculation would double though in law it ought not to have been done.
4. Here, in absence of form 9C, huge liabilities were credited against the petitioner. He preferred applications before the Commissioner, Commercial Tax most of which are pending now for almost a decade. Liability having been created in the assessment order for recovery thereof, certificate proceedings were initiated even though petitioner was not at fault, the liability arose as a consequence of non-furnishing of form 9C by the Coal Companies as aforesaid. It is this which has brought the petitioner to this Court.
5. In course of the long drawn proceeding before this Court, it is now evident that some 9C forms had been issued earlier by the Coal Companies. Some are still issued and some are yet to be issued. In my view, in such a situation it would not be just and equitable to permit the certificate proceedings to continue. I, therefore, stay all certificate proceedings in respect of the petitioner where the demand pertains to default in furnishing form 9C. The petitioner may in the meantime produce form 9C as made available by the Coal Companies for which liabilities have been created against the petitioner before the respective Assessing Officers who would be obliged to amend the demand and consequently the requisition as made in terms of Section 11 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. Once the Coal Companies disclose to the Assessing Officer directly that no further forms are liable to be given then after hearing the parties, the Certificate Officer would proceed to determine the balance liability of the petitioner, if any, and then proceed to recover the same in accordance with law but till such time, the proceedings shall not be proceeded with.
6. Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Coal Company assures that all form 9C, which are liable to be given to the petitioner and not already given, would be given to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. On this assurance, the writ petition stands disposed of with the directions and observations as aforesaid. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Coal Company.