Central Sales Tax recovery certificates must name the Union, while invalid penalty items and form defects do not automatically void them.

Central Sales Tax dues are liabilities of the Union, and State authorities assess and recover them only on behalf of the Government of India; a recovery certificate therefore cannot validly name the State of West Bengal as certificate-holder and is without authority of law on that ground. Inclusion of a penalty component not legally recoverable does not by itself vitiate the entire certificate, because the recovery scheme contemplates challenge to liability in whole or in part. A misdescription showing the certificate as filed under both sections 4 and 5 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act was only an irregularity in form and was saved from invalidity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a certificate for dues arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could validly name the State of West Bengal as the certificate-holder, (ii) whether inclusion of penalty not legally recoverable vitiated the entire certificate, and (iii) whether the certificate was invalid because it was shown as filed under both sections 4 and 5 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

Issue (i): whether a certificate for dues arising under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could validly name the State of West Bengal as the certificate-holder.

Analysis: Under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the tax is levied by the Government of India, while the State authorities only assess, collect and enforce payment on behalf of the Union in the manner of the State sales tax law. The fiction in section 9 operates for collection and recovery and does not convert the liability into a State debt. Article 269 of the Constitution also supports the conclusion that the proceeds are ultimately assigned to the State only after collection on behalf of the Union. The certificate-holder therefore had to be the Union authority and not the State of West Bengal.

Conclusion: The certificate was bad and without authority of law on this ground, and the objection was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether inclusion of penalty not legally recoverable vitiated the entire certificate.

Analysis: Penalty for late submission or non-submission of return under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was not recoverable. However, section 9 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 permitted the certificate-debtor to deny liability in whole or in part, showing that the Act contemplated certificates which might include items not recoverable in law. The mere presence of an invalid component therefore did not necessarily destroy the whole certificate.

Conclusion: The certificate was not invalid merely because part of the claim was not legally recoverable, and this objection failed.

Issue (iii): whether the certificate was invalid because it was shown as filed under both sections 4 and 5 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

Analysis: The reference to both sections was only an irregularity in form. Section 2 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery (Validation of Certificates and Notices) Act, 1961 saved certificates from invalidity on the ground of defect, error or irregularity in form, and the defect did not affect the substance of the proceeding.

Conclusion: The certificate was not vitiated by this irregularity, and this objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The certificate was quashed because the named certificate-holder was legally wrong, while the other objections did not succeed; fresh proceedings in accordance with law were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: In recovery of Central Sales Tax dues, State authorities act only on behalf of the Government of India, so the recoverable demand remains a Union liability and a certificate naming the State as certificate-holder is without authority of law.

---