RAIPUR DUGTH SANGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX

JUDGEMENT

(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.) 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.