MOHAVIR PRASAD JAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Balasore Circle, Balasore (opposite party No. 2) refusing amendment of the registration certificates of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 wanted amendment of its registration certificates bearing Nos. BAC-942 and BA-I 3312 by inclusion of the following items :

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1, who is the director of M/s. Jaikisan Dasmall Jute (P.) Limited at Rupsa in the district of Balasore (petitioner No. 2), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has set up a jute mill for manufacture of jute products. The petitioners have alleged that the State of Orissa which was a surplus State in the Matter of supply of electricity, gradually became a deficit one due to large scale industrialisation and due to frequent tripping and load-shedding, their business was affected. So, they wanted to have their own generator for generation of electricity and wanted inclusion of the items with a view to availing the concessional rate of tax. But the application for inclusion of such items in the registration certificates, as indicated above, was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that "when normal conditions prevail, it will not necessitate the use of generator. Moreover, the jute factory which was established in the year 1975 has been able to produce the finished product without the use of generator. Therefore, ultimate manufacture of finished goods is not hampered without generator and as such it cannot be treated to be essential as an integral part for manufacture of finished products. Therefore, the dealer cannot be allowed to avail the opportunity of paying concessional rate of tax for purchase of generator and its accessories". Aggrieved by the orders passed by opposite party No. 2 as per annexures-5 and 5/1, petitioner No. 2 moved the revisional authority (opposite party No. 3) who by cryptic orders as per annexures-6 and 6/1 without assigning any reason rejected the application.

(3.) THE revisional orders (annexures-6 and 6/1) on that account are vulnerable and are liable to be set aside. But, inasmuch as we are of the view that the rejection of the application for amendment by the Sales Tax Officer is without jurisdiction for the reasons which we would presently indicate, it is unnecessary to remit the matter to the Additional Commissioner and we proceed to dispose of the same on merits.