MAHADEV BHANDAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX
LAWS(ORI)-1988-11-6
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on November 08,1988

MAHADEV BHANDAR Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE order of cancellation of the registration certificate of the petitioner by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, West Circle, is under challenge in this writ application. The petitioner asserts in the writ petition that opposite party No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner on 8th October, 1986 to show cause why the registration certificate issued to the petitioner should not be cancelled under section 9 (6) (c) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act for the reasons stated therein. The show cause in question was to be filed on or before 24th October, 1986. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner had submitted his show cause on 24th October, 1986, but the Sales Tax Officer, opposite party No. 2, without considering the said show cause filed by the petitioner cancelled the petitioner's certificate of registration and the said order of cancellation dated 24th October, 1986 has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner carried a revision to the Commissioner, but being unsuccessful there, has approached this Court.
(2.)THE main, ground of attack to the order of the Commissioner as well as that of the Sales Tax Officer is that though the petitioner had filed his show cause on 24th October, 1986, but the same was not considered by the Sales Tax Officer and in the impugned order under annexure-3 it has been misstated that no show cause has been filed by the petitioner. In support of the petitioner's assertion that the show cause had been filed by him on 24th October, 1986, the receipt of a clerk from the office of the Sales Tax Officer was produced in court today. When this matter was listed on 21st September, 1988, and again on 22nd September, 1988, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Sales Tax Department had taken time to obtain instructions in the matter and today on instructions submits that the receipt in question is of the head clerk of the sales tax office and not of the bench clerk before whom normally the petitions and other documents are required to be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement in court that the show cause in question had been offered to the bench clerk, but as he did not give any receipt, therefore, the same was given to the head clerk and a receipt was obtained from the head clerk. In view of the admitted position that the petitioner had filed his show cause on 24th October, 1986, though the same was filed before the head clerk of the concerned office, the Sales Tax Officer as well as the Commissioner has committed error in coming to the conclusion that no show cause had been filed by the petitioner on 24th October, 1986. Since the show cause in question had admittedly been filed within the time granted to the petitioner and the same had not been considered by the appropriate authority, the impugned order of cancellation as well as the order of the Commissioner in revision cannot be sustained. We would accordingly quash the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 24th October, 1986 as well as the revisional order of the Commissioner annexed as annexure-5 and require opposite party No. 2 to reconsider the question of cancellation of the petitioner's certificate of registration after taking into account the show cause filed by the petitioner.
The learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Sales Tax Department says though the receipt produced by the petitioner is that of the head clerk, but the show cause filed by the petitioner is not on record. For facilitating consideration of the show cause by the Sales Tax Officer, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file a copy of the show cause already filed before the Sales Tax Officer on 10th November, 1988 whereafter, the Sales Tax Officer would pass appropriate orders for considering the said show cause.

(3.)THE writ application is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Writ application disposed of accordingly.


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