SUKUMAR CHANDRA ROY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 13th September, 1976, the petitioner applied for registration under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as a reseller. From records it appears that the petitioner appended a list of 20 items which the petitioner claimed to be reseller of. These items included cast steel components, bearings, bushings and valves, EMU coach fittings, train lighting and head lighting components. I am mentioning the above items only to show the diversity of the goods the petitioner claims to be reseller of. There was an inspection on the application made by the petitioner. The report of the local enquiry was to the effect "the dealer is a reseller". This report was dated 16th October, 1976.

(2.) Ultimately, on 8th December, 1976, an order was passed in which the petitioner was granted registration as a manufacturer of roller path. In the order sheet dated 8th December, 1976, which was handed up to the court and the copy of which has also been annexed to the petition, there does not appear to be any mention of the application mentioned by the petitioner for grant of registration as reseller. There is no finding that the petitioner did not do any resale as claimed by the petitioner.

(3.) The case of the writ petitioner was that the petitioner was doing mostly resale business. He was also doing some manufacturing activity. The petitioner should have been granted registration both as manufacturer and reseller. By inadvertence, the registration as reseller was not granted to the petitioner. But this mistake was overlooked both by the petitioner as well as by the department and the petitioner was allowed to obtain declaration form No. XXIV (sic) (resale) and also form No. XXIVA (sic) (manufacture). The contention of the petitioner is that this mistake was discovered later on and the petitioner was eventually granted registration both as reseller and manufacturer. Further contention is that this should have been given retrospectively from the date of the application, and that the respondents have jurisdiction and authority to grant retrospective registration. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the question of retrospective registration can only arise when there was a mistake, but the petitioner, with full knowledge of the fact that he had not been allowed registration as reseller had obtained the declaration form No. XXIV (sic) (resale). Therefore the penalty proceedings have been properly initiated. The question of retrospective amendment of the registration really would have arisen had there been any case of inadvertence and omission which is not the case here. Additionally, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that this being a case of penalty, penalty order having already been passed, the court should not interfere in this matter and the petitioner should go on appeal.