SUBHASH CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee carries on business in timber and has been assessed under rule 12 (6) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Rules) for the quarters ending 31st of March, 1959 to 30th September, 1960. The facts leading to assessment under rule 12 (6) may be mentioned in short. On 20th February, 1959, the assessee filed an application for registration under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Section 7 (1) of the Act says that every dealer liable to pay tax under that Act shall, within such time as may be prescribed for the purpose, make an application for registration under that Act to such authority in the appropriate state as the Central Government may, by general or special order, specify, and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 3 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Registration and Turnover Rules) provides for filing an application for registration under section 7 of the Act by a dealer to the notified authority in Form 'a'. Form 'a' prescribes various particulars. It appears that there were various defects. From time to time the assessee was given an opportunity to remove the defects, and ultimately the application for registration was granted in December, 1962. The department treated the assessee as not having been registered from 20th of February, 1959, till December, 1962, when the registration certificate was granted, and accordingly assessed to sales tax under rule 12 (6 ). The assessee contended that as ultimately the registration certificate was granted it must be operative from the date of the application and that during the relevant period he must be treated as a registered dealer and not as an unregistered dealer. The assessee's stand was rejected although. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee asked for a reference. The reference application was rejected. The assessee approached this court. On 12th December, 1966, a Bench of this court was of opinion that the following question of law arose out of the appellate order :

(2.) THE answer to the aforesaid question would depend upon a decision as to whether the assessee would be treated as a registered or unregistered dealer from 20th of February, 1959, till December, 1962.

(3.) IN this case though the application was defective in many particulars, by virtue of the proviso to rule 5 (2) of the Registration and Turnover Rules, the assessee was being given an opportunity from time to time to rectify the defects and when the defects were rectified the registration certificate was granted in December, 1962. Once the registration certificate was granted, it must be operative from the date of the application. It was not open to the department after the grant of registration certificate to say that during the relevant period the assessee was an unregistered dealer. That conclusion was possible only if the application had been rejected for non-removal of defects when it could be said that no application for registration had been filed.