P.K. Misra, J.
1. In this case, the judgment was delivered on 16.5.2003 by quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Zone, Berhampur in Annexure-7, as well as the order dated 7.4.2001 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Koraput-I Circle, Jeypore in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, and directing that the registration certificate of the petitioner would stand rectified by including the goods mentioned in the application for registration in Annexure-1 series for re-sale and use for execution of works contract under Col. No. 16(a)(b) of the registration certificate with effect from 23.10.1998, i.e., the date from which the registration certificates were made effective. Now, we give the detailed reasons for the aforesaid conclusion reached by us.
2. The petitioner is a dealer executing works contract. It applied for registration certificates both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the Orissa Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act (for short, 'the Central Act'.). Col. No. 7 of the application form under the Orissa Act is meant for specifying the classes of goods ordinarily purchased by the dealer (a) for resale and (b) intended to be used in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, or in mining or in generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. The petitioner had filled up Col. No. 7(a) by specifying 'execution of works contract' and Col. No. 7(b), by giving the names of the goods. Cols. 16(a) & (b ) of the application form under the Central Act, which are identical to Cols. No. 7(a) & (b) of the application form under the Orissa Act, were also filled up by the petitioner in the same manner. The registering authority, however, while issuing the registration certificate under the Orissa Act, mentioned 'NIL' in Co). No. 3, which states, 'The dealer intends to use the following goods in the manufacture/processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or other form of power inside the State of Orissa'. 'NIL' was also. mentioned in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the registration certificate under the Central Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application before the registering authority, i.e., the Sales Tax Officer, Koraput-l Circle, Jeypore, for rectification of the registration certificates, which was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Zone, Berhampur, which was also dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.
3. The relevant portions of Section 9 of the Orissa Act are extracted hereunder;
'9. Registration of dealers : (1) * * *
(2) Every dealer required by Sub-section (1) to be registered shall make an application in this behalf in such manner and to such authority as may be prescribed and every such application shall be accompanied by a fee of five rupees and two pass-port size photographs of himself and two sheets containing specimen signature of the dealer duly attested by Gazetted Officer:
Provided that no such photograph and specimen signature shall be required to be furnished in the case of companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, Societies registered or deemed to be registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 or the Department of Government.
(3) On receipt of an application, the prescribed authority shall, if he is satisfied that the applicant is a bonafide dealer and the requirements of the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder have been complied with, he shall register the applicant and grant him a Certificate of Registration in the prescribed form, which shall specify the class or classes of goods in which the dealer carries on business at the time of grant of the certificate and such other particulars as may be prescribed :
Provided that the prescribed authority shall refuse to grant a Certificate of Registration, if the applicant has not paid the dues payable by him in respect of any business under the provisions of this Act and theRules made thereunder:
*** *** ***(Underlining is ours)
Provisions have also been made under Section 9A for voluntary registration and under Section 9C for provisional registration.
Chapter-IV of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules (for short 'the Rules') deals with registration of dealers. Rule 6 thereof reads :
'6. Application for Registration : (1) An application for registration under Section 9 shall be made not less than one month before the date from which the dealer becomes liable to pay tax under the Act.
(2) In the case of a dealer to whom Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) of Section 4 applies and who is liable to make an application within the time allowed by Sub-rule (1), an application for registration may be made not later than 15 days from the beginning of the month immediately following a period not exceeding 12 months during which his gross turn over first exceeded or again exceeded the appropriate limit as specified in Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Act :
Provided that the delay in securing registration in case falling under this Sub-rule shall not be deemed to constitute a contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 read with Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25.
(2-A) In the case of dealer to whom Sub-section (6) of Section 4 applies, an application for registration shall be made not later than 15 days from the date of his liability to pay tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
(3) An application for voluntary/provisional registration under Section 9-A/9-C may be made at any time of the year. (4) *** *** *** '
Rule 7 provides as under :
'7. Grant of Registration Certificate : (1) When the Sales Tax Officer, after making such enquiry as he may think necessary, and on receipt of such other particulars, information or evidence as he may require the applicant to furnish and on compliance of any direction given by him to the applicant, within such time as may be specified by the Sales Tax Officer, is satisfied, that the applicant is a bona fide dealer and has furnished the correct particulars or information or evidence as required by him, has duly complied with any other direction given by him, that the particulars' contained in the application are correct and complete, that the application is in order, that the applicant has paid the dues payable by him in respect of any business under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and that the circumstances and reasons for which any earlier certificate of registration granted to the applicant or to any person associated with the business for which the application is made, do not continue to exist, and the prescribed has been paid and that he has also fully paid the security, if any, for good and sufficient reasons demanded under Rule 7-A, he shall register the dealer and shall issue a certificate of registration in Form-11 within a fortnight from the date of receipt of intimation as to the payment of security under Rule 7-A.
(2) Copies of Certificate of Registration granted under Sub-rule (1) shall be granted for every additional place of business in the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer enumerated in the certificate.
(3) The registration certificate when granted shall be effective from the date on which an application is made under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6.
(4) When the Sales Tax Officer is not satisfied that the applicant is a bona fide dealer or the requirements of the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder are duly complied or the applicant has furnished the particulars, information or evidence required by him or has complied with any direction given by him within the specified time, he shall reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(5) *** *** ***(6) *** *** ***'(Underlining is ours)
Rule 83 provides for rectification of mistakes, which reads as follows :
'Any taxing authority appointed under Section 3 may at any time correct any arithmetical or clerical mistake or any error apparent on the face of the record arising or occurring from accidental slip or omission in an order passed by it.'
Apart from the provisions quoted above, the Orissa Act provides for purchase of materials without payment of tax on furnishing declaration in Form XXXIV for resale. In the Central Act, as per Section 8, concessional rate of tax is provided in case there is only one purchaser provided the sale is effected in course of movement. The Orissa Act was amended substituting the definition of 'sale' with effect from 7.4.1984. By the said amendment, materials used in execution of works contract were brought within the definition of sale.
4. In the above background, we have to consider whether the Sales Tax Officer was correct in mentioning 'NIL' in the column 'goods for resale' in place of 'execution of works contract' as indicated by the dealer in its application form. 'Goods for resale' and 'goods used for execution of works contract', if read together, would indicate that the goods for resale are required for execution of works contract. And goods which are required for execution of works contract have been mentioned in the next column. In both the columns of the registration certificates under the Orissa Act and the Central Act, the registering authority has mentioned 'NIL'. This, according to us, is an error apparent on the face of the record arising or occurring from accidental slip or omission in an order. Since issuance of a certificate is definitely an order, the aforesaid error was rectifiable under Rule 83 of the Rules, which is equally applicable to the provisions of the Central Act. Inspite of this, when the petitioner applied for rectification of the registration certificates by including the names of the goods and requested for issuance of declaration form by its application dated 16.3.2001, the same was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer or the registering authority by order dated 7.4,2001 in Annexure-5 to the writ petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable.
5. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of this Court in F.A.C.T. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 82 STC 62. In that case, the petitioner was a works contractor and it applied for registration both under the Orissa Act as well as the Central Act in the prescribed form. In the application form, the petitioner had indicated a list of goods in which it carries on business. The Sales Tax Officer while granting the certificate of registration both under the Orissa Act and the Central Act had indicated therein against the column 'list of goods for resale' as 'execution of works contract'. The petitioner prayed for amendment of the certificate of registration, i.e., for indicating therein the list of materials required to be used in the execution of works contract, which it wanted to purchase for resale. The said application for amendment was rejected and the order of rejection was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner. The said orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Additional Commissioner were assailed before this Court. This Court after considering the format for. application under the Orissa Act and the Central Act came to the following conclusion :
'After being satisfied as to the existence of business and the goods in respect of which such business is being carried on, the Sales Tax Officer will have no further jurisdiction to grant a certificate by mentioning only some of the goods and by omitting others or by not mentioning any goods at all. Issuing a certificate of registration only in respect of some of the goods applied for and not mentioning the other goods applied for would in the eye of law amount to refusal of certificate of registration to that extent and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer must record reasons in writing for such refusal and that too he could refuse only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. This being the position of law, and admittedly the petitioner having made an application on August 1, 1985 by giving a list of goods in respect of which the certificate of registration is applied for and the Sales Tax Officer having granted a certificate of registration on August 5, 1985, but merely inserting therein 'execution of works contract' as against column 3 of the certificate of registration, it must be held that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the said officer to do so and that also is bad for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules as neither he has recorded any reasons in writing nor has he given an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.'
The aforesaid conclusion of this Court would clearly indicate that the order of the Sales Tax Officer refusing to entertain the amendment application and confirmation of such refusal by the Additional Commissioner are in clear violation of the principle of law laid down by this Court. Therefore, in the present case, we had no hesitation to quash both the orders, i.e., the order dated 7.4.2001 passed by the Sales Tax Officer in Annexure-5, and the order dated 11.12.2001 of the Additional Commissioner in Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
6. In the aforesaid judgment, though direction has been issued , to the Sales Tax Officer to amend the certificate of registration, the same has been directed to be given effect to from the date of filing of the amendment application, as in that case the amendment application did not include a prayer for correction of the certificate of registration granted to the petitioner earlier in the year 1985. The present case, however, is distinguishable to that extent inasmuch as in this case the application for amendment is really a petition for rectification under Rule 83 of the Rules. A specific prayer has also been made to make the amendment effective from 23.10.1998, as is evident from the application dated 16.3.2001 in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Therefore, the amendment/rectification has to be given effect to from the date when the original certificate of registration was granted.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we have directed that the registration certificates shall stand rectified by indicating the names of the goods for resale, i.e., for use in execution of works contract, with effect from 23.10.1998 and have further directed issuance of necessary declaration form in Form C under the Central Act so that the petitioner can avail of the benefits granted under the statute.
A.K. Patnaik, J.
I agree.