JUDGMENT S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. - A dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), whose certificate of registration has been refused, is the petitioner in this writ application under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. On 27th February, 1981, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of registration certificate of the year 1981-82. The Sales Tax Officer found that the petitioner, a registered dealer has not filed returns for quarters ending June, September and December, 1980. He issued notice on 8th June, 1981 (annexure-1), for refusing renewal of registration for 1981-82 giving opportunity to the petitioner to file the returns on or before 12th June, 1981, paying the admitted tax to avoid such rejection. The petitioner not having filed the returns and not having paid the admitted tax, the Sales Tax Officer refused renewal of the certificate of registration for the year 1981-82 by order dated 10th July, 1981 (annexure-2). The petitioner assailed the same in revision which was dismissed on 30th January, 1982. The petitioner obtained certified copy of the order of the Sales Tax officer (annexure-2) on 15th February, 1982. Shortly thereafter, he received a corrigendum (annexure-4) issued on 19th February, 1982, where the original order of refusal by the Sales Tax Officer indicating refusal to be under section 9(3-f) was corrected and was stated to be one under section 9(6)(c) of the Act. 3. Undisputedly, renewal of registration certificate of the petitioner for the year 1977-78 was refused by the Sales Tax Officer against which the petitioner filed a revision. By revision it directed the renewal and further directed that such renewal shall be effective till the end of the year, 1980-81. 4. Since there was no certificate of registration till 4th August, 1980, the petitioner could not have filed a return for the quarter ending June, 1980, within the due date. There was, however, no impediment for the petitioner to file returns for the quarters ending September, 1980 and December, 1980, within the due dates. Mr. R. B. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that renewal was endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer in the certificate of registration on 17th September, 1980, and the petitioner could not have filed the return for quarter ending September, 1980, on the due date. We are not able to appreciate the said contention. Mr. R. B. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that renewal was endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer in the certificate of registration on 17th September, 1980, and the petitioner could not have filed the return for quarter ending September, 1980, on the due date. We are not able to appreciate the said contention. Return was to be filed after 30th September, 1980. When endorsement of renewal was made long prior to that date on 17th September, 1980, the return for that quarter could have been filed on the due date. In any case, the petitioner could have filed the return after receipt of notice (annexure-1) dated 8th June, 1981, when the Sales Tax Officer gave him opportunity to file the same on or before 12th June, 1981. Along with the returns, the petitioner could have also paid the admitted tax as could have been indicated in the returns. No explanation has been offered why the returns could not be filed in spite of getting opportunity for the same. An inference can safely be drawn that the petitioner intended to avoid payment of admitted tax for which he did not file the returns without any jurisdiction. 5. Mr. R. B. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that refusal of registration is under section 9(6)(c) of the Act and non-filing of return and non-payment of admitted tax are not envisaged under the said provision to be grounds for refusal. Mr. Ray is correct that after the revisional order there was no scope for the Sales Tax Officer to correct the order of refusal (annexure-2). The Sales Tax Officer invited this litigation by correcting the order. There can be no doubt that the Sales Tax Officer did not apply his mind while correcting the order. 6. The Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to refuse renewal of registration under section 9(3-f) of the Act, which reads as follows : "9. Registration of dealers - (1) to (3-c) ................... (3-f) The registering authority shall ordinarily refuse renewal of registration of a dealer, who has not paid the dues payable up to the end of the quarter preceding the date of application, but it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow renewal of his registration. Explanation. Registration of dealers - (1) to (3-c) ................... (3-f) The registering authority shall ordinarily refuse renewal of registration of a dealer, who has not paid the dues payable up to the end of the quarter preceding the date of application, but it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow renewal of his registration. Explanation. - A dealer shall not be deemed to have made default in making payment of the dues as aforesaid if an application for stay of recovery of the dues has been duly filed by him and is pending on the date of application for renewal." 7. Mr. Ray submitted that "the dues payable" envisages a prior assessment and demand and seeks assistance from the explanation to the aforesaid provision. We are not able to appreciate how the explanation would be attracted. It envisages an altogether separate situation. A registered dealer under the Act is required to file the return quarterly and pay the admitted tax which is due to be paid. When no such return is filed, it can be inferred that in order to avoid "the dues payable" the dealer did not file the return. If the dealer would have explained the circumstances for non-payment, the Sales Tax Officer might have consideared the genuineness of his difficulties. In this case, no explanation was offered for consideration of the Sales Tax Officer. Despite opportunity for the same, the petitioner failed to file the returns and pay the admitted tax. His conduct is contumacious. In the circumstances, the Sales Tax Officer was justified in refusing renewal and revisional authority was justified in affirming the same. 8. In the result, writ application has no merit which is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. L. RATH, J. - I agree. Writ application dismissed.