KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Section (respondent No. 2) whereby the said authority rejected the applicant's prayer for issue of registration certificate (R.C.) allowing coverage of purchases for resale of goods at concessional rate of tax. The applicant carries on business in selling fruit juice tetra pack, frozen vegetables and dairy products. After selling frozen vegetables in sealed container imported from its head office in Delhi, the applicant applied for registration in form I under Section 27 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, "the 1994 Act"). The applicant claims that in his application he has specified the classes of goods he intends to purchase for resale and that he had occasions to purchase such goods. He alleges that inspite of such an application the respondent No. 2 passed order for issue of an R.C. without mentioning therein the coverage of such items of goods for the purpose of resale. His further contention is that since he gave all requisite informations correctly and the application for registration in form I was in order, it was obligatory for the respondent No. 2 to issue the R.C. allowing the coverage as sought for. The applicant also failed to get any favourable order in two successive revisional forums presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes respectively. He has, therefore, filed the instant application before this Tribunal praying for direction on the respondents to issue R.C. giving coverage of the items applied for.

(2.) THE respondents have defended the impugned orders. Their case is that coverage in the R.C. is permissible only in respect of such items of goods as are ordinarily purchased by the dealer concerned till the date of actual registration. They contend that in the instant case only "frozen vegetables in sealed container" have so far been received by the applicant and that too by way of stock transfer from his head office in Delhi and not by way of purchase. Hence, according to them, the applicant is not entitled to get coverage of any item purchase whereof has not been made so far. According to the respondents, the R.C. was granted properly because the respondent was satisfied that the turnover of the applicant as an importer had exceeded the taxable quantum of Rs. 20,000, but no coverage could be allowed as no purchase of any item was made for resale or for manufacture.

(3.) MR . Mukherjee next submits that even if the applicant has not purchased any goods for sale in West Bengal, the respondent No. 2 ought to have given coverage for goods which the applicant intends to purchase for resale. This, he contends with reference to Rule 5(1)(b) of the 1995 Rules which reads thus :