BISRA LIMESTONE COMPANY LTD Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER ROURKELA CIRCLE UDITNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a limited liability company governed by the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has its registered office in Calcutta and its place of business is at Biramitrapur in the district of Sundargarh. The petitioner is a lessee of mines for mining limestone and dolomite, that is, for winning and getting the same from the earth and processing and selling them in the State of Orissa. It holds a certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 (annexure A ). The relevant entry in the certificate of registration is to the effect that for use in mining the petitioner can purchase machinery, plant (productive and auxiliary) tools, equipment. The petitioner's case is that in accordance with the entry in the certificate of registration it purchased the following goods : (i) Drilling rods, (ii) Laboratory chemicals, (iii) M. S. rods, (iv) tyre-tube, (v) Leyland Dumper, (vi) Dumper spares and (vii) Gasoline. According to the petitioner these goods are covered by the entry in the certificate of registration and it is entitled to purchase them on payment of concessional rate of sales tax as prescribed in section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). On 20th September, 1966, opposite party No. 1 (Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle) served a notice on the petitioner, stating that the aforesaid goods were not specified in the certificate of registration, but that they were purchased on a false representation made by the petitioner that they were covered by the certificate of registration. He was called upon to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for making a false representation. The notice did not specify the period during which the purchase took place. Despite that, the petitioner showed cause and at time of hearing, opposite party No. 1 clarified the position by saying that the transactions took place between 30th November, 1964, and 22nd March, 1965. Ultimately, penalty was imposed on the petitioner in respect of the period between 1st August, 1964, and 30th November, 1964. The Sales Tax Officer was of opinion that the petitioner was to pay penalty of Rs. 48,000, but taking a lenient view of the matter penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed. This writ application was filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the impugned order imposing penalty dated 9th November, 1966.

(2.) MR . B. M. Patnaik for the petitioner raised the following contentions :-

(3.) IN the order of the Sales Tax Officer there is no finding that the dealer falsely represented to the seller, when purchasing the aforesaid goods, that they were covered by the certificate of registration. Section 10 (b) of the Act, which deals with penalties, runs thus :