COMMR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES Vs. JUGAL KISHORESADANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants, who are the Commissioner of Commercial Texas, the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhowanlpur Charge and the State of West Bengal against two orders of D. K Sen J. one dated December 22, 1981 allowing the amendment of the writ petition and the other dated March 26, 1982 allowing the writ petition itself. The writ petitioner, Jugal Kishore Sadani, who Is the respondent No. 1 In these appeals has been carrying on the business of watches and spare parts under the name and style of "Sadani Watch Co." at 14. Radha Bazar Street, Calcutta since 1978. The petitioner has been acting as an agent and or a distributor of watches of the respondent no 2, the Hindusthan Machine Tools Limited, a Central Government Company (hereinafter referred to as H M.T) In the usual course of business, the petitioner used to place orders on HMT for supply of watches and, along with the orders, used to issue blank declaration forms duly signed by the petitioner. H.M.T. used to accept the orders and keep such declaration forms with them. After the delivery was effected against such an order, the petitioner would be called upon by the H M T. to make entries In the declaration form, on the reverse thereof, of the particulars of watches supplied by HMT, After the entries were made, the petitioner and the representative of H.M.T. would countersign the declaration form. In 1980 81 the petitioner. In the usual course of business pieced certain orders on H M T. along with declaration forms, the particulars of which are as follows :

(2.) The said declaration forms (Form XXIV) are required to be produced by a dealer before the Commercial Tax Officer under rule 27A(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for the purpose of claiming the benefit of lower rate of tax.

(3.) Against the first order dated August 1, 1980 far twenty thousand pieces et watch, the petitioner received the supply of a total quantity of 9,883 pieces of watch between August 1980 and October 1980. In November 1b80, a further supply of 4.000 pieces of watch was made by H. M. T, According to the petitioner, although the aid supply of 4,000 pieces of watch was covered by the declaration form No. E/ 1 -367561, H. M. T. insisted on the submission of a fresh declaration form and payment of 15% of sales tax against each transaction. Alter various negotiations between the petitioner and H. M. T" the petitioner had to pay 15% of sales tax. It is the case of the petitioner that in or about November 1980, the appellants searched the office of the petitioner and in course of such search seized certain documents of the petitioner. In view of such seizure, the petitioner could not fill up the declaration form by making an entry in the tame the exact figure of the supply effected by H. M, T. In the month of November 1980. It appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner end H, M. T, over the supply of watches. The last supply that was made by H. M. T. to the petitioner was 4,000 pieces of watch In April and May 1981 end, thereafter, no supply was affected by H. M. T. alleging that the petitioner had not deposited the sales tax dues for the month of November 1980. and that the said four incomplete declaration forms had not been regularised by the petitioner in spite of repeated requests. The said allegations were denied by the petitioner and it was stated by him that at ell material time - he was ready and willing to make necessary endorsements in the reverse of the said declaration forms As H.M.T. refused to make any further supply, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court against HMT. In the writ petition, the appellants were impleaded as parties respondents. The petitioner, inter alia, prayed for the issue of a writ In the nature of a Mandamus commanding HMT to effect supplies to the petitioner as per the order of the petitioner dated April 17, 1981 and to allow the petitioner to make necessary endorsements on the reverse of the blank declaration forms submitted be him being the said declaration forms Nos. E/1 36751, E/1 -367563 and E/1 -367564 and to countersign the same. No relief was, however, claimed against the appellants Including the State of West Bengal and the Sales Tax Authorities,