TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Inclusion of Explosives in Registration Certificate for 'Mining'</h1> <h3>Senthil Enterprises Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy Road Circle, Coimbatore</h3> Senthil Enterprises Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Trichy Road Circle, Coimbatore - [1994] 95 STC 78 (Mad) Issues:- Re-incorporation of 'explosives' under the column 'mining' in the registration certificate.- Delay in re-incorporating explosives in the certificate of registration.- Entitlement to issue 'C' forms for the purchase of explosives.- Meaning of the term 'mining operations.'Analysis:The writ petition was filed by an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act seeking a mandamus to direct the Commercial Tax Officer to re-incorporate 'explosives' under the column 'mining' in the registration certificate. The petitioners were registered dealers engaged in the purchase of explosives and were entitled to buy explosives under a registration certificate dated March 17, 1983. However, explosives were deleted from the certificate on March 1, 1989, leading to objections and subsequent representations. The petitioners' entitlement to issue 'C' forms for the purchase of explosives was a crucial aspect of the case, and the delay in re-incorporating explosives was highlighted as illegal.The supporting affidavit detailed the sequence of events, including objections filed, representation before authorities, and the subsequent application for re-incorporating explosives in the registration certificate. The petitioners relied on orders from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Joint Commissioner, emphasizing their entitlement to issue 'C' forms for the purchase of explosives for specific purposes related to mining activities. The absence of a counter-affidavit from the respondent further strengthened the petitioners' case.The orders dated July 6, 1990, November 30, 1990, and March 21, 1991, played a significant role in the judgment. These orders highlighted the nature of the explosives purchased by the petitioners and the eligibility criteria for issuing 'C' forms. The observations made by the authorities in these orders supported the petitioners' claim and undermined any serious argument against re-incorporating explosives in the registration certificate.Additionally, a previous writ petition filed by the petitioners for a mandamus to issue 'C' forms related to the purchase of explosives for mining purposes had been granted by the Court. This previous order further substantiated the petitioners' entitlement to issue 'C' forms for explosives used in their mining business. The definition of 'mining operations' was also discussed, referencing the Encyclopaedia Britannica to support the inclusion of explosives in mining activities.Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, issuing the mandamus as requested by the petitioners. The decision was made in favor of re-incorporating explosives under the column 'mining' in the registration certificate, emphasizing the petitioners' entitlement based on the supporting orders and legal arguments presented.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
