RAM LAWAT SHAW Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner has moved this writ application alleging that the petitioner made an application for issue of declaration forms in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27AA of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 and at the time of consideration of such application the Commercial Tax Officer pointed out that the petitioner has to rectify some returns and pay taxes and thereafter the application of the petitioner for declaration forms would be considered.

(2.) The respondents have produced records from which it appears that the Commercial Tax Officer considered the application on the 8th January, 1987 and passed an order in which it was pointed out that three declaration forms previously issued by the said Commercial Tax Officer were scrutinised and it was found that the petitioner used those declaration forms for the purpose of purchase of bus and tractor and availed of the concessional rate but at the same time the sale of materials made on the basis of the purchase made with the help of those declaration forms were not treated as sales and consequently the petitioner did not include those transactions in his return and also did not pay any sales tax.

(3.) In my view the Commercial Tax Officer was wrong in this regard as when returns have been filed, the correctness of the returns is not subject to scrutiny at the time of issue of declaration forms. But at the same time in this case it appears to me that as the petitioner, who previously obtained declaration forms from the Commercial Tax Officer and used such declaration forms for the purpose of purchase but being a reseller did not include the sale of the purchase made, was a fit case where the Commercial Tax Officer could have withheld the issue of the declaration forms in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27AA(2)(a)(i) of the said Rules on the ground that there was no bona fide use of such declaration forms previously issued to the dealer concerned. In my view the Commercial Tax Officer's approach in withholding the declaration forms was right but the ground of withholding of such declaration forms as disclosed was not correct. When such declaration forms could have been withheld on a different and valid ground, the discretionary power to entertain writ application by the writ court in such circumstances, in my view, should not be exercised in favour of the petitioner who was alleged to have not made bona fide use of the declaration forms under the law and caused loss to the Revenue.