\» HIGH COUKT OF CHHATriSGARM AT EBytSPUS Sinaie Bench iton'bte ShrLU.i.. Oattu. Cwi. Petitloner Respondents Writ PeUtion (Tt No. 6704 of 2006 Raipur Digth Sangh (Sahkari) Mar^reidit a cooperative society Chhokra Nala, Raipur (C.G.) Through its Managing Director, S.M. Tikyani S/o M.K. Tikyani Aged about 56 yeare versus 1. Additional Commissioner Commereial Tax Vanijyik KarBhavan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Assistant Commisstoner Commercial Tax Vanijyik Kar Bhavan, CMI Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Commercial Tax D.K.8. Bhavan Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) Present : Shri Shashank Dubey, Sr. Advocate with iUs. Smrtti Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addt. Advocate General fbr the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3lf April, 2007) Petitioner is a Milk Caoperative Society ('Society' for short). It is stated that the Sooiety uses skimmed milk powder as raw material for the purpose of manufacture of milk and ather mllk products. The said Soolety had obtained the r^istration certificate to deal with the producte other than the skimmed milk powder. By filing an appllcation dated 12-02-1986, the Sooiety haJ gone before the Registerlng Authority/Sales Tax Offlcer for amendmait of the registration certlficate as provided under Rule 11-A ofthe Malhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 ('Rules' for short). Since, the petitkmer did not hear anything from the respondents either about acceptgnce or rejection ^^^y^^uyjff^t^^aBmf^jwl^^^vj^r ^i^^?NS%^^^^^^^^^^^^^Pl?i®"S^^^^^^^^^%§^^^^^S Wl "•%. ,-z- ^- 1 of their request, while filing their annual retums for the assessmert 1988-89 they had clalmed exemption ftom payment ofsates ta^reduced rate of tax before the Assessing Authority. This request of the petltiener vms rejected by the Assesslng Authority solety on the ground that the regWration certificate does not include the skimmed milk powder. After connpletion of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had carried the matter betore the Revisional Authority by filing a revision petition. The Revlsionat Authority by its order dated 26-11-2005 has rejeoted the revision petltton and has conflrmed the order passed by the A^essing Authority for the assessment period 01-04-1988 to 31-03-1989. Aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Authority as well as the Ftevisfonat Authority the petitioner/assessee is before this Court in this writ petition. (2) Leamed counset for the petltioner would submit that Rule 11-A of ie Rules prcivides for deemed acceptance of the request made fer amendment of the registration certiflcate, If for any reason the respondents have not disposed of the claim made within the time prescribed in the prsvision itself and sinoe the respondents had not considered the request made by the petitioner/assessee, the a<pp\icatwn filed OTI 12-02-1986, Is deemed to haw been altowed and the registration certificate issued earlter is deemed to have been amended. Therefore, the Assessirg Authority and the Revisional Authority were not justified in refusing to grant the rellef of exemption/ reduced rate of tax to the petitioner while concludlng the assessment proceedings for the assessment period 01-04-1988 to 31-03-89. (3) Per eontra, tearned counsel for the respondents would submit that the request of the petitioner/assessee for amendment of registration certificate was rejected by the respondents on 22-09-1986. This assertien is also made in the retum fited by the respondents. However, the return is silent insofar as the communicatton of refusal to amend the r^istration certificate to the petitioner/assessee, isconcemed. ———^~~"— r- (4) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under Rute 11 -A of Rules the Registering Authority/Sates Tax Offloer after application fited by the petitioner/assessee for amendment of registration certlfleate is rejected, it is mandatory on their part to communicate the same to the petitioner/assessee. Since that has not been done, the petittoner/assessee was prevented from questioning the refusal of registratlon certifteate before the appropriate forum. He further states that the order passed by the respondents dated 22-02-1986 requires to be set-aside and a direction requires fo be issued to the Sales Tax Officer to reconsider the application for amendmert of the regi^ration certificate and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner/assessee. (5) Rute 11 -A of the Rules reads as under: "(11) (A) Amendment of registaUon certificate. (1) Where any registered deater en the ocourrence of any event referred to in section 32 or in pursuance of any other provision of the Act makes an applioation for amendment of his rsgistration certifloate or makes an application for speeification of any goods in his registration certlficate by way of raw material or incidental goods or (ieletion of any of such goods there from, the appropriate sates tax officer or the authorized offlcer, as the case may be, if satisfied after making such irquiry as he may think necessary, that the informatton fumished by the applicant is correct shali amend the registration certificate cf the applicant within the period specified io clause (a) of sub section (8) of section 16. (2) If on inquify made in respect of the application made by a registered dealer, the appropriate sales tax officer w the authorized offioer, as the case may be, is not satisfied about the correctness of the ^ ?-^7 "% information given in fhe a lication, he shall, for reasons to be recorcied m \w1ting, reject the appiication or refuse to specify any goods by way of raw material or incidental goods in the registration certiflcate of the applicant w'thin the period specified in clause (a) of sub sertion (8) of section 15. An intimation r^arding th® rejection of the application for amendment or refusal to specily any goods as raw material or incidental goods as the case may be, stating reasons there for shall tae sent to the applicarrt within ten days of the date ofthe order rejecting the applioatian." (6) Sub rule 2 of Rule 11-A of the Rules, mandates that the Regi^ering Authortty/Sales Tax Offlcer after considering the applteation filed by a d^er / assessee under sub Rule 1 of Rule 11-A of the Rutes, has to communicate the reasons for rejection wthin ten days from the date of order of rejection of the application flted underRule 11-A ofthe Rutes. (7) In the instant case, the Registering Authority has rejeoted tha application on 22-W-1986 but has not communioated the sams to tha petitioner/assessee within ten days from ttie date of order of rejection, that only means that though it is rejected, the same 1s not communicated and therefore it is in contravention of sub fule 2 of Rule 11 -A ofthe Rules. (8} Since petitioner was prwented by the responderts - authorities trom producing the necessary amended Registration Certtflcate, it would be proper and in the interest ofjustice atso to set aside the order of assessment and the order passed by the revisional authority and direct them to re-de the matter after considering the application filed by the assessee for amendment of Registration Certificate. —4....,^. (9) Accordingly, the fbltowing :- 1 w x ORPeR 1. The petition is allowed. 2. The orders passed by the Assessing Authority as well as tte Revisional Authority for the assessmant year 1988-89 are set-aside. 3. The Assessing Authortty is directed to reconsida- the appiicatton filed by the petftioner for amendment of reglstrathan eertiflcate and communicate the same to the petitioner/assessee. Theisafter the assessing Authority is directed to cximptete the assessment proceedings for the assessment pertocl 01 -04-1988 to 3t-03-19®. 4. All other contentions of the both the parties are left open. Sd/- Chief Justice ^ ""''-'L'; -*^t^^'?;'h*^^^^1^