N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has sought issuance of writ of certiorari seeking quashing of the orders of respondents No. 2 and 3 with regard to the amendment made in the registration certificate earlier issued under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to issue a writ of mandamus to respondent No. 4 to issue declaration forms ST-XXII in accordance with the registration certificate issued originally.
(2.) PETITIONER is engaged in the production of sugar and sugar by-products. Petitioner applied to the Assessing Authority, respondent No. 4 for issuance of registration certificate under Section 7 of the Act which was granted vide order dated 5th May, 1989, copy thereof is Annexure P-1. As per this registration certificate, the petitioner could buy anything including plant, machinery, etc. as find mention in the registration certificate originally issued. Subsequently, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner purported to exercise the jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act suo motu issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the registration certificate be not amended. In response to this notice, Shri Manoj Kumar, Accounts Clerk appeared on 7th January, 1991 on behalf of the petitioner whereas Shri K. R. Garg, Excise and Taxation Officer appeared on behalf of the State. However, the case could not be taken up as (he Presiding Officer was out of station and so the same was adjourned to 15th January, 1991. On this date, petitioner did not put in appearance and so the proceedings of the case were conducted against him. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner ordered for the deletion of certain items which were mentioned in the registration certificate on the ground that since the petitioner is wholly engaged in the manufacture of sugar which is tax free item covered by entry No. 62 of Schedule 'b' and he is, thus not entitled to make purchase of those items on the strength of this registration certificate. It was further directed to strike such items from the registration certificate. This order is dated 15th January, 1991. Annexure P-2. Feeling dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner, petitioner filed a review petition contending that the items which have been deleted from the registration certificate were infact required to run the plant and machinery smoothly. Though, the petitioner's primary activity was manufacturing of sugar and in addition thereto, sold molasses and other by-products as well as in view of this position, the amendment ordered in the registration certificate precluded petitioner's purchases as a registered dealer, which is against the provisions of the Act and, therefore, prayed that the petitioner be permitted to retain the certificate of registration as issued originally. This claim was seriously contested by State who tried to justify the order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner on the ground that petitioner is primarily carrying out manufacturing of sugar, a tax free item whereas molasses as such is a by-product. This way the order impugned is perfectly in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Revisional Authority, agreeing with the State counsel dismissed the review petition vide order dated 13th November, 1991. Annexure P-3.
(3.) ONCE again, an application under Section 21 of the Act was filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the earlier order dated 13th November, 1991 on the ground that though the points raised by the dealer were noted yet the same were not adjudicated. According to the petitioner the registration certificate could be justifiably amended only if the petitioner was wholly engaged in the manufacture of sugar, a tax free item. On scrutiny, it was crystal clear that besides sugar petitioner is selling molasses and other items which are by products of sugar. These items are liable to tax under Section 4-B of the Act. The earlier certificate permitting the petitioner to purchase various items like plant, machinery, chemicals, oils, lubricants, pumps, accessories etc. could not be excluded as purchase on these items was essential in smooth working of the machinery to manufacture sugar, molasses and bagasse. Objections were also raised with regard to non affording of adequate opportunity in stating his view point and that the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner could not amend the registration certificate by wrongly assuming that the petitioner deals in only sugar, a tax free item. The Presiding Officer once again examined the various aspects in detail but somehow found no merit in any of the objections raised by the petitioner and thus, rejected the application vide order dated 29th May, 1992, Annexure P-4. Simultaneously, petitioner filed an application under Section 22 of the Act for referring the following questions of law, which according to the petitioner arise out of the order dated 13th November, 1991:" (i) Whether the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in the grab of exercise of his delegated powers under Section 21 as Commissioner can amend/revise or cancel the Registration Certificate granted under Section 7 of the Act ? (ii) Whether it is the Commissioner alone who could change/alter, amend or cancel the Registration Certificate under Section 7 and that too on the grounds specifically mentioned therein? (iii) Whether the so called order of amendment impugned in revision petition virtually amounts to cancellation of Registration Certificate? (iv) Whether the order impugned in revision petition is not within the jurisdiction and illegal? (v) Whether in the absence of any finding rather in the presence of a finding that good part of the sales affected by dealer attracted sales tax the Registration Certificate could be virtually withdrawn is not exclusively dealing in tax free goods?";