ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was a assessee under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The writ petitioner, among other things, manufactures and sells cement. It had two factories for manufacture of cement within the State of Bihar. One was at Sindri and the other was in Chaibasa. Both the units at Sindri and Chaibasa had separate registrations under section 14 (corresponding to present section 13) of the Bihar Act. The company claimed that it had different outlets for sale of cement within the State of Bihar and sought permission to be registered in Patna Circle by invoking rule 3 (4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983. Such permission was granted and the company was filing its returns before the concerned officer in Patna.

(2.) AFTER re-organisation of the State under the Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000, with effect from November 15, 2000, Sindri and Chaibasa became part of the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner, the assessee, continued to have separate registrations for the manufacturing units at Sindri and Chaibasa in the State of Jharkhand also, under the Finance Act. The petitioner made an application before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi, under rule 3 (4) of the Rules. By order dated April 16, 2001, the prayer was refused on the ground that the company had the Sindri and Chaibasa works separately registered under rule 3 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, though on April 17, 2001, this Court directed the Commissioner to dispose of the application by a reasoned order in C. W. J. C. No. 1188 of 2001. On July 28, 2001, a consolidated registration was issued to the Cement Marketing Division of the company excluding the two manufacturing units at Sindri and Chaibasa covered by separate registrations under the Act.

(3.) THIS Court set aside the order of the Commissioner and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the claim of the petitioner-company, in the light of the order of the Tribunal which, it was pointed out, was binding on the Commissioner. On December 22, 2003, the Commissioner granted a consolidated registration to the Cement Marketing Division, but refused to include within it the manufacturing units at Sindri and Chaibasa, which had already been registered separately under the Act. The present writ petition has been filed challenging this order of the Commissioner on various grounds, including the ground that the Commissioner had acted illegally in refusing to follow the direction of the Jharkhand Commercial Taxes Tribunal and the further contention that under the Act and the Rules, the consolidated registration sought for by the company was liable to be granted. Originally, the petitioner-company had appointed a sole selling agent, the Cement Marketing Company of India Limited, a subsidiary of the petitioner-company.