R K SUPPLY CORPORATION Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed and arises out of a notice dated December 9, 1993 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Taxes, Tezpur, either to apply for registration or to show cause in writing by appearing in person as to why the petitioner-firm should not be registered under section 12 (1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and why the security money amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 would not be demanded from the petitioner-firm under section 15 (1) (a), 15 (1) (b) and 15 (2) to (4) of the said Act.

(2.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was engaged in the business of sale of cement - a taxable item under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. The petitioner claimed himself as a dealer in business amongst other in selling cement of a brand known as Vinay Cement manufactured by the Vinay Cement Co. Ltd. The firm registered itself as a dealer under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 and submitted its return as an assessee under the said Act up to the period March 31, 1993. After the enactment of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 which amalgamate, consolidate and amend the laws relating to the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods in the State of Assam, the petitioner did not apply for registration under the new Act under section 11 (1) of the Act of 1993. According to the petitioner Vinay Cement was exempted from the payment of sales tax on the goods produced by it under the Assam Industries (Sales Tax) Concession Act, 1986 for the period of five years as per the industrial policy of the State of Assam. M/s. Vinay Cement moved the High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the levy of tax during the period of exemption and the High Court by its judgment and order directed the respondents not to demand and realise sales tax from M/s. Vinay Cement. The petitioner in that view of the matter did not apply for registration under the new Act on bona fide belief in spite of the demand from the respondent-authority. The petitioner accordingly submitted a representation before the concerned Superintendent of Taxes. Instead of responding to the representation of the petitioner the respondent issued the impugned notice, the full extract of which is reproduced below :

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the levy and realisation of sales tax on the sale of cement purchased from industrial unit which was exempted from payment of sales tax under the Act and thus the impugned notice was illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 265, 300-A and 301 of the Constitution of India.