Decided on May 15,2010

Suguna Poultry Farm Limited Appellant


Manoranjan Virk, Member (A) - (1.)THIS appeal is filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chittoor Division, who issued orders amending G2 Registration Certificate of the appellant. The appellant has, first of all, questioned the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in issuing revision show cause notice for deleting certain goods from the CST Registration Certificate. According to them, the Deputy Commissioner grossly erred in exercising power U/s. 20 for amending the Registration Certificate issued under the CST Act, 1956 although it contains nothing prejudicial to revenue. In this connection, they have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court reported in : 122 STC 236.
(2.)FURTHER , they have submitted that as no specific instructions had been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes empowering the Deputy Commissioner U/s. 4A to exercise powers of registration, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction for invoking the power U/s. 4A and amending their Registration Certificate.
The appellant has also stated that the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that there must be a Notification authorizing the dealer to purchase the goods U/s. 5 -B(1)(b) is contrary to the language of the section and it is improper for him to hold that the goods under consideration must be necessarily used in the composition of poultry field. According to them, in view of the amended language of Sec. 5B, it is not necessary that goods falling under the purview of clause (b) must form part of the composition of poultry feed. According to them, judgments referred to by the Deputy Commissioner in the case of Delta Paper Mills confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court later is in the context of Sec. 5B as it stood before it was amended in the year 1996 whereas the G2 Registration Certificate itself was given to the appellant subsequent to the amendment on 28.3.2002. According to them, the reasoning given by the Deputy Commissioner that the effect of the amendment is only to include processing of goods whereas earlier it was confined to manufacturing alone is not correct. In any event, the appellant has argued that the Deputy Commissioner erred in with drawing the benefit retrospectively without there being any specific provision in the Act.

(3.)THE learned State Representative has supported the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and has stated that both on the point of jurisdiction as well as interpretation of Sec. 5B, the Deputy Commissioner has acted within the purview of law. The appellants' unit for which the G2 Certificate issued is registered for manufacture of poultry feed. As such the appellant would be entitled to obtain raw materials at concessional rate and Incubators, Motors, Generators, Egg Trays, etc., which have been deleted from the G2 Registration Certificate by the Deputy Commissioner can in no way be termed as raw materials for poultry feed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.