BHARAT CHAMBER Vs. GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a registered Partnership Firm, registered in the name of Bharat Chamber in the year 2000, as a Small Scale Industry. The Petitioner's Firm has been registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and also under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Commercial Tax Department has also given IFST waiver to the extent of Rs. 6,40,000/- in respect of the transactions of the Petitioner's Firm. While so, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ramanathapuram, the First Respondent herein, has passed the impugned order on 23.5.2002 stating that the Petitioner's Partnership Firm is using the term "Bharath", which is equivalent to "India" and such term cannot be used by a Partnership Firm, and therefore, the concession given to the Petitioner's Firm is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the concession given by the Commercial Tax Department has been cancelled by the First Respondent, who has nothing to do with the Commercial Tax Department. It is consequent to the order passed by the First Respondent, the Second Respondent herein has passed another order on 27.5.2002, which is also impugned in this Writ Petition, cancelling the concession of Rs. 6,40,000/- given as IFST Waiver. Challenging both the impugned orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed on various grounds. One of the main grounds, based on which the present Writ Petition has been laid, is that there is no bar for any citizen in carrying on business either as a Partnership Firm or otherwise in using the term "Bharath" and mere using the term "Bharath" cannot be said to be an offence under any Act. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that registration of the Petitioner's Partnership Firm in the name of Bharath Chamber, as-on-date, still continues. Further, the registration under the Commercial Tax Department as "Bharath" has not been cancelled. It is only a waiver benefit granted by the Commercial Tax Department, which has been cancelled by the First Respondent, who has nothing to do with the Commercial Tax Department.

(2.) On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 & 2 that for the same relief, the Petitioner has already approached the Civil Court, which has dismissed the Suit filed by him and the Appeal filed by him was also dismissed, and therefore, he cannot be permitted to maintain the present Writ Petition.

(3.) It is also the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that under Section 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 [for brevity, the "Emblem Act"], there is a prohibition in using certain names. According to him, as per the Schedule, use of the name of Bharath will amount to making a patronage in the name of the Government for the business of the Petitioner, and therefore, the Competent Authority has to decide under Section 4(2) of the Emblems Act.