JOSH CHEMICALS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana and also the orders of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Sales Tax Tribunal.

(2.) THE petitioner is a private limited company with its registered office at Chandigarh. The petitioner opened its branch at Ludhiana for doing business of purchase and sale of certain acids, oil and other soap materials. The petitioner filed an application for registration under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The application was rejected by the Excise and Taxation Officer by order dated February 11, 1991. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner with the plea that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Excise and Taxation Officer while considering the petitioner's application, seeking registration. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Excise and Taxation Officer with a direction to decide the matter afresh. The application was again rejected by the Excise and Taxation Officer on July 11, 1994. The petitioner again filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner with the plea that no notice of hearing has been given to him before rejecting the application. It was also argued that no regular business at a particular business premises was done inasmuch as registration had not been granted. Since there was some delay in filing the appeal, it was explained that copy of the order, whereby the application for registration was rejected, could not be obtained in time because the petitioner had no knowledge about the rejection of the application. The Deputy Commissioner considered the appeal on the question of limitation as well as on merits and rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner went in further appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal but did not succeed.

(3.) FROM the facts emerging from the pleadings as well as the orders passed by the taxation authorities and the Tribunal, it is manifest that the petitioner was not able to show that any business was carried on. Sufficient efforts were made by the Excise and Taxation Officer to make local enquiries and the Taxation Inspector was deputed to verify if the petitioner was carrying on any business. As has been seen, the Taxation Inspector went to the spot in November 1990 but no business was found being conducted by the petitioner at the given place. The Inspector submitted two reports and thereafter the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Excise and Taxation Officer. It is also clear that the petitioner was again found to be absent from the place of his business when the Inspector was sent to the spot in June 1994. The books of account were also not produced. In such a situation, there appears no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the taxation authorities, rejecting the application for registration. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.