HETRAM AGARWAL Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition are the partners of a firm known as Begraj Asoke Kumar. They carry on their business at Siliguri. On 16th January, 1959, the petitioners applied for registration of their firm under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The application was made in the prescribed form and in item No. 16(a) the petitioner specified the various commodities they had been dealing with for resale in order that those commodities may be set out in the registration certificate. In the present application we are concerned with one such commodity, viz., pulses, which was set out in that application by the petitioners. This application was disposed of by an order dated 18th April, 1959, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer which reads as follows: Issue R. C. to the dealer under Section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Start 11(2) for the period from 24.6.58 up to the date prior to the date of registration.

(2.) The order reads as one which allowed the petitioners' prayer in its entirety and without any reservation whatsoever. But the registration certificate that was actually issued specified initially one commodity "groundnut". Eight other commodities like mustard oil, etc., were incorporated on 8th June, 1959. The registration certificate so issued is R.C. 401A (J.P.) Central, which has since been renumbered 73A (S.C.) Central. It is not in dispute that at all material times pulses were not subjected to any sales tax in the State of West Bengal but the petitioners who were purchasing pulses from other States like Bihar and U. P. were freely using the declaration forms when issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Siliguri, to support the sales by their vendors as sales to registered dealer. In the accounts and registers maintained by the petitioners they had clearly been showing such use of the declaration forms for purchase of pulses from other States to the knowledge of the Commercial Tax Authorities and without any objection until April, 1966. According to the petitioners, in April, 1966, for the first time it was noticed by the Commercial Tax Officer that though the petitioners had been using declaration forms for purchasing pulses, it was not much regular as that article was not specified in the registration certificate. On 29th April, 1966, in order to remove the error the petitioners applied for amendment and the amendment was readily allowed on 7th June, 1966, bringing in pulses on the registration certificate. In the meantime, however, the respondents initiated a penalty proceeding under Section 10A read with Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the ground that the petitioners had misused the declaration forms. In August, 1967, the Commercial Tax Authorities at Siliguri informed the Commercial Tax Authorities of other States that the petitioners were not entitled prior to June, 1966, to use the declaration forms in support of the purchases made by them from other States. As a result the petitioners' vendors were called upon by the Commercial Tax Authorities of those States to pay sales tax for which earlier exemption was obtained against the declaration forms issued by the Commercial Tax Authorities, Siliguri. Faced with these circumstances the petitioners made an application on 26th August, 1967, praying therein for an order "giving retrospective effect of the amendment order dated 7th June, 1966, from the date of registration certificate, i.e., 18th April, 1959, or for amending the registration certificate including items mentioned in the application for registration and not included in the R. C. by the C. T. 0., Jalpaiguri Charge, from the date of R. C., i.e., 18th April, 1959". This application was rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer, respondent No. 1, by an order dated 30th October, 1967, on the view that he is not competent either to review or to revise any order passed by his predecessor in office. It is this last order which is the subject-matter of challenge though at the hearing an alternative prayer has been added with leave of the Court for revising the old grant dated 18th April, 1959, in terms of the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and including pulses as one of the items of commodities for resale in the registration certificate.

(3.) The rule is being contested by the respondents and the facts set out hereinbefore are not mostly disputed. According to the respondents, however, the petitioners' initial application for registration was not entirely allowed by the Commercial Tax Officer and their prayer for inclusion of pulses in the certificate was refused. It was incorporated in the certificate on 7th June, 1966, but no such amendment can be made with retrospective effect. Petitioners' prayer made on 26th October, 1967, according to the respondents, is misconceived as the present Commercial Tax Officer has no authority to review or revise the order of his predecessor by which order it must be deemed that the petitioners' prayer for registration with pulses as one of the items for resale had impliedly been refused by the then Commercial Tax Officer.