RAJANI EXTRACTIONS LIMITED Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is essentially to the order (annexure P12 ). In substance, by this order and the orders passed earlier to one the sales tax authorities have refused to grant separate registration to the petitioner for their one unit under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed ). The question is, whether the action of the sales tax authorities in refusing to grant registration is sustainable or not ? In order to appreciate the issue involved, it is necessary to state the factual background of the case that eventually brought the issue in writ to this Court.

(2.) PETITIONER is a limited company formed by the members of one Rajani family. Earlier these very members were carrying on business of solvent extraction by and under the name "rajani Extractions". The partners of the firm then formed company (i. e. , petitioner) and made this company as one of the partner of the said firm by amending the partnership deed. Later on, after some time, the partnership-firm was dissolved and the entire assets and liabilities including the running business of the dissolved firm was taken over by the petitioner-company.

(3.) BY annexure P5, the petitioner applied for temporary new registration under the provisions of the M. P. G. S. T. Act. It was the case of petitioner that the registration is required for their new unit No. 2. The Sales Tax Officer made an inquiry and by its order dated January 12, 1993 (annexure P6) rejected the application. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner against an order dated January 12, 1993. By order dated June 24, 1993 (annexure P9), the Deputy Commissioner (revisionary authority) allowed the revision and set aside the order dated January 12, 1993. In the opinion of the revisionary authority there was no proper inquiry that was done by the Sales Tax Officer and hence, the order was held not sustainable. The matter was, thus, remanded to the aales tax authorities for reconsideration of the application. After the remand, the authorities held an inquiry, called for the reports from Sales Tax Inspectors, who on date October 21, 1993 submitted its report. Eventually by order dated October 4, 1993/october 27, 1993 (annexure P12), the sales tax authorities (S. T. O.) rejected the application by his reasoned order. It is against this order (annexure P12) the petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As stated supra, the question that therefore, arises for consideration is, whether the order dated October 4, 1993/october 27, 1993 (annexure P12) rejecting the petitioners application for temporary registration is legal or proper.