Raipur Dugth Sangh (Sahkari) Maryadit Vs. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the revisional authority by its order dated november 26, 2005 has rejected the revision petition and has confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority for the assessment period april 1,1988 to march 31, 1989. aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority the petitioner/assessee is before this court in this writ petition. -(1) where any registered dealer on the occurrence of any event referred to in section 32, or in pursuance of any other provision of the act makes an application for amendment of his registration certificate or makes an application for specification of any goods in his registration certificate by way of raw material or incidental goods or deletion of any of such goods therefrom, the appropriate sales tax officer.....orderh.l. dattu, c.j.1. petitioner is a milk co-operative society ('society', for short). it is stated that the society uses skimmed milk powder as raw material for the purpose of manufacture of milk and other milk products. the said society had obtained the registration certificate to deal with the products other than the skimmed milk powder. by filing an application dated february 12, 1986, the society had gone before the registering authority/sales tax officer for amendment of the registration certificate as provided under rule 11a of the madhya pradesh general sales tax rules, 1959 ('the rules', for short). since, the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents either about acceptance or rejection of their request, while filing their annual returns for the assessment year.....

Judgment:
ORDER

H.L. Dattu, C.J.

1. Petitioner is a milk co-operative society ('society', for short). It is stated that the society uses skimmed milk powder as raw material for the purpose of manufacture of milk and other milk products. The said society had obtained the registration certificate to deal with the products other than the skimmed milk powder. By filing an application dated February 12, 1986, the society had gone before the registering authority/Sales Tax Officer for amendment of the registration certificate as provided under Rule 11A of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 ('the Rules', for short). Since, the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents either about acceptance or rejection of their request, while filing their annual returns for the assessment year 1988-89 they had claimed exemption from payment of sales tax/reduced rate of tax before the assessing authority. This request of the petitioner was rejected by the assessing authority solely on the ground that the registration certificate did not include the skimmed milk powder. After completion of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had carried the matter before the revisional authority by filing a revision petition. The revisional authority by its order dated November 26, 2005 has rejected the revision petition and has confirmed the order passed by the assessing authority for the assessment period April 1,1988 to March 31, 1989. Aggrieved by the said order of the assessing authority as well as the revisional authority the petitioner/assessee is before this Court in this writ petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rule 11A of the Rules provides for deemed acceptance of the request made for amendment of the registration certificate, if for any reason the respondents have not disposed of the claim made within the time prescribed in the provision itself and since the respondents had not considered the request made by the petitioner/assessee, the application filed on February 12, 1986, is deemed to have been allowed and the registration certificate issued earlier is deemed to have been amended. Therefore, the assessing authority and the revisional authority were not justified in refusing to grant the relief of exemption/reduced rate of tax to the petitioner while concluding the assessment proceedings for the assessment period April 1, 1988 to March 31, 1989.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents, would submit that the request of the petitioner/assessee for amendment of registration certificate was rejected by the respondents on September 22, 1986. This assertion is also made in the return filed by the respondents. However, the return is silent insofar as the communication of refusal to amend the registration certificate to the petitioner/assessee, is concerned.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Rule 11A of the Rules the registering authority/Sales Tax Officer after application filed by the petitioner/assessee for amendment of registration certificate is rejected, it is mandatory on their part to communicate the same to the petitioner/assessee. Since that has not been done, the petitioner/assessee was prevented from questioning the refusal of registration certificate before the appropriate forum. He further states that the order passed by the respondents dated February 22, 1986 requires to be set aside and a direction requires to be issued to the Sales Tax Officer to reconsider the application for amendment of the registration certificate and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner/assessee.

5. Rule 11A of the Rules reads as under:

11(A) Amendment of registration certificate.-(1) Where any registered dealer on the occurrence of any event referred to in Section 32, or in pursuance of any other provision of the Act makes an application for amendment of his registration certificate or makes an application for specification of any goods in his registration certificate by way of raw material or incidental goods or deletion of any of such goods therefrom, the appropriate Sales Tax Officer or the authorised officer, as the case may be, if satisfied after making such enquiry as he may think necessary, that the information furnished by the applicant is correct, shall amend the registration certificate of the applicant within the period specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (8) of Section 15.

(2) If on enquiry made in respect of the application made by a registered dealer, the appropriate Sales Tax Officer or the authorised officer, as the case may be, is not satisfied about the correctness of the information given in the application, he shall for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject the application or refuse to specify any goods by way of raw material or incidental goods in the registration certificate of the applicant within the period specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (8) of Section 15. An intimation regarding the rejection of the application for amendment or refusal to specify any goods as raw material or incidental goods, as the case may be, stating reasons therefor, shall be sent to the applicant within ten days of the date of the order rejecting the application.

6 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11A of the Rules, mandates that the registering authority/Sales Tax Officer after considering the application filed by a dealer/assessee under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11A of the Rules, has to communicate the reasons for rejection within ten days from the date of order of rejection of the application filed under Rule 11A of the Rules.

7 In the instant case, the registering authority has rejected the application on February 22,1986 but has not communicated the same to the petitioner/ assessee within ten days from the date of order of rejection, which only means that though it is rejected, the same is not communicated and therefore it is in contravention of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11A of the Rules.

Since the petitioner was prevented by the respondents-authorities from producing the necessary amended registration certificate, it would be proper and in the interest of justice also to set aside the order of assessment and the order passed by the revisional authority and direct them to re-do the matter after considering the application filed by the assessee for amendment of registration certificate.

8. Accordingly, the following: