Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Vs. Amir Brothers - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous Civil Case No. 178 of 1976
Judge
Reported in[1979]44STC200(MP)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales
RespondentAmir Brothers
Advocates:K.L. Goyal, Adv.
Cases ReferredM.P. v. Imphalbs Manufacturing Co.
Excerpt:
.....failure to get himself registered under section 7(1) of the central sales tax act. 4. it is not in dispute that the non-applicant (the assessee in thepresent case) has not obtained registration under section 7(1) of the centralsales tax act and for his failure to apply and obtain registration undersection 7(1) penalty could be imposed under section 18(6) of the m......board of revenue was altogether inerror in holding that the registration under sub-section (2) of section 7 canbe deemed to be registration under sub-section (1) thereof. 4. it is not in dispute that the non-applicant (the assessee in thepresent case) has not obtained registration under section 7(1) of the centralsales tax act and for his failure to apply and obtain registration undersection 7(1) penalty could be imposed under section 18(6) of the m.p. generalsales tax act, 1958.5. consequently, our answer to the question isin the negative. as none appeared for the assessee, the parties aredirected to bear their own costs.
Judgment:

G.L. Oza, J.

1. This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue for getting an answer to the question:

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, registration under Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act is sufficient to exclude the liability of an assessee for penalty under Section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act for failure to apply and obtain registration under Section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

2. The facts on which this reference has been made are that the non-applicant dealer was assessed to sales tax, both under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in respect of the period 5th November, 1964, to 24th October, 1965, though the dealer himself claimed that no part of his turnover during that period could be treated as turnover relating to inter-State trade. The assessing officer did not accept the contention and held that the dealer was liable to be assessed under the Central Act in respect of turnover of Rs. 37,840 and a penalty of Rs. 2,000 was also imposed under Section 18(6) of the State Act for failure to get himself registered under Section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. On first appeal, the quantum assessable under the Central Act was determined at Rs. 34,180. As regards the turnover with regard to the State Act, (sic) the Commissioner found that the figure of Rs. 34,180 is correct so far as the turnover for the Central Act is concerned. As regards the penalty, the appellate authority reduced it to Rs. 1,000. In second appeal, the assessment under the Central Act was accepted, but the order imposing penalty was set aside. The Commissioner of Sales Tax aggrieved by this order sought a reference to this Court.

3. Registration under Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is necessary in regard to different sets of circumstances. The section reads thus:

Section 7(1) Every dealer liable to pay tax under this Act shall, within such time as may be prescribed for the purpose, make an application for registration under this Act to such authority in the appropriate State as the Central Government may, by general or special order, specify, and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

(2) Any dealer liable to pay tax under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, or where there is no such law in force in the appropriate State or any part thereof, any dealer having a place of business in that State or part, as the case may be, may, notwithstanding that he is not liable to pay tax under this Act, apply for registration under this Act to the authority referred to in Sub-section (1), and every such application shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

It is, therefore, apparent that when a dealer has transactions in thenature of inter-State trade, registration under Section 7(1) is necessary.Registration under Section 7(2) could not be said to be a registration underSection 7(1). This question came up before a Division Bench of this Court inCommissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Imphalbs Manufacturing Co. 1972 M.P.L.J.181 and it was held as under:

It is no doubt true that thelanguage of Section 7(1) and Section 7(2) is not very clear and that on afirst look at the provisions one is tempted to take the view that theregistration under Section 7(2) is only voluntary or anticipatory registrationcontemplated under Sub-section (1) of Section 7. But that is not so. Thepurposes of the two registrations are altogether different. It, therefore,follows that if a person indulges in inter-State sale, he has to get himselfregistered under Section 7(1); and if he fails to do so, he exposes himself tothe penalties prescribed under the law. The Board of Revenue was altogether inerror in holding that the registration under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 canbe deemed to be registration under Sub-section (1) thereof.

4. It is not in dispute that the non-applicant (the assessee in thepresent case) has not obtained registration under Section 7(1) of the CentralSales Tax Act and for his failure to apply and obtain registration underSection 7(1) penalty could be imposed under Section 18(6) of the M.P. GeneralSales Tax Act, 1958.

5. Consequently, our answer to the question isin the negative. As none appeared for the assessee, the parties aredirected to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //