LAWS(CAL)-1987-7-13

STANDARD VACUUM EQUIPMENT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

Decided On July 16, 1987
STANDARD VACUUM EQUIPMENT Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute relates to extension of eligibility certificate under Rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules. THE petitioner was originally granted registration for the period 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983. On 2nd March, 1983 the petitioner made an application for renewal of the eligibility certificate. This application was disposed of on 26th July, 1984 by the Assistant Commissioner, Dharamtala Circle. THE ground for rejection was that the petitioner had not issued the bills against sales of goods against the same serials. One of the conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to continue the eligibility certificate is that the dealer must maintain serially numbered cash/credit memos for sales of goods manufactured in the small-scale industry. THE Assistant Commissioner found that the bills raised on account of the labour charges were intermixed with the bills for sale of goods.

(2.) THE petitioner applied before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for revision. In course of the revision, petitioner admitted that he had repaired the rotary high vacuum pumps manufactured by him and sold by him and for that reason he has issued some bills for job-works or labour charges. THE Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the dealer was manufacturer of rotary high vacuum pumps. THE dealer issued bills for job-works and bills for sale of goods manufactured in his small-scale industries in the same serial numbers. It was a fact that he did not issue separate bills for job-works. It also appears that for repair work the dealer used some materials from his own stock. THErefore, the labour charge bill which he issued did not relate to purely labour charges. It appears from the two orders that the petitioner had intermingled the bills of some repair works done by him on the goods manufactured by him at his small-scale industry. Whether he is entitled to repair the goods manufactured by him in the small-scale industry unit and issue the same set of cash memos or bills is not free from doubt. THEre is no doubt that the petitioner has been prejudiced by the delayed rejection of the petitioner's application. It has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner has not collected any taxes for the goods manufactured and sold by him. Since the application was belatedly disposed of he was prejudiced. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has stopped applying for eligibility certificate for his carrying on business in the usual course and collecting sales tax on and from 1st April, 1984. Having regard to all these factors I feel that the petitioner's eligibility certificate should not have been withheld for the year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984. THErefore, there will be an order, as prayed for, in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. THE writ petition succeeds and is allowed. THEre will be no order as to costs.