HIND CERAMICS LIMITED Vs. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the following question has been referred to this court: Whether, in absence of specific date being mentioned in the certificate of registration from which it is to be considered as valid as provided for in the form of the certificate, a transaction taking place prior to the date of granting its registration can be taken to have been covered by it ?

(2.) The petitioner in this case is Hind Ceramics Limited. The Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Charge, in making the assessment of the petitioner for the period from 12th November, 1957, to 2nd April, 1958, by his order dated 11th December, 1958, allowed the claim for deduction under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to the extent of Rs. 1,41,537.71 in respect of sales made to M/s. Sanitary Ware Distributors between 30th November, 1957 and 31st December, 1957, on the basis of certain declaration in form No. XXIV received by the petitioner from the purchasing dealer. The purchasing dealer's, viz., M/s. Sanitary Ware Distributors' registration certificate was issued on the 19th March, 1958, but the date from which the registration certificate was to be valid was not inserted by the officer issuing the certificate. It has been stated in the statement of case that the said date had not been inserted through inadvertence. Prior to form No. IIA which is substituted by the West Bengal Finance Department Notification dated 14th March, 1961, certificate of registration for a dealer having only one place of business in West Bengal under Rule 6 of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, contained a sentence to the following effect: This certificate is valid from...until cancelled.

(3.) As mentioned hereinbefore, this form was altered by the notification dated 14th March, 1961 and the present form does not contain the sentence "this certificate is valid from...until cancelled". The instant case, however, will have to be governed by the form prevalent prior to 1961. To continue with the narration of events, subsequent to the completion of assessment by the Commercial Tax Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chowringhee Circle, revised the assessment on a proposal from a successor-in-office of the said Commercial Tax Officer and disallowed the claim for exemption by his order dated 24th November, 1960. Against the said order of assessment dated 24th November, 1960, the dealer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who dealt with the case, rejected the dealer's claim by his order dated 29th July, 1961. It may be mentioned that the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in his order had referred to a Finance Department Notification No. 1840-F.T. dated 21st August, 1952, which had imposed an obligation upon the registering authority to state the date from which the registration was valid. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for revision before the Board of Revenue and the Member, Board of Revenue, by his order dated 7th February, 1964, rejected the said revision application. It was contended before the Board that the revision in this case was unjustified. We are not concerned with this aspect of the matter. The second contention that was urged was on the question whether the registration certificate should be deemed to have been granted from the date of the making of the application for registration. Dealing with the contention the Member, Board of Revenue, observed that although there was a lacuna in filling up the registration certificate inasmuch as it had not been specifically mentioned from which date the registration certificate was valid so far as West Bengal law was concerned it had so far been held that the legal validity of the registration certificate would run from the date when it was granted. When the sales in question took place, there was no registration certificate granted to the purchasing dealer and as such the purchasing dealer at that time could not be considered as a registered dealer. Thereafter on an application having been made the aforesaid question has been referred to this court.