JUDGMENT B.N. KIRPAL, J. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions to this Court: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that registration or validity thereof could be granted to the assessee from the date when it applied for seeking registration, i.e., July 7, 1975 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liability for assessment operated against the assessee from June 1, 1975 when the notification issued by the Government amending the exempted items mentioned at Sl. Nos. 12 and 16 of Schedule II of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, was issued ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the delay, if any, in the submission of the application could not be condoned ?" On June 1, 1975, the Government issued a notification amending Schedule II of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as a result of which several items dealt with by the dealer became assessable for the first time to sales tax. The dealer became aware of the issuance of the notification only on June 16, 1975 and on July 7, 1975 two applications for registration were filed, one under the Central Act and the other under the local Act. Registration was allowed with effect from July 7, 1975 though the liability of the dealer arose with effect from June 1, 1975. The claim of the dealer that registration should be with effect from June 1, 1975 was not accepted. An appeal was filed to the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, but without any success. Further appeal was filed to the Tribunal which also decided in favour of the department. It is thereafter that the Tribunal referred the aforesaid questions to this Court. The questions in issue are no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajdhani Waste Cotton Agency v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1991] 83 STC 530 had an occasion to consider similar questions. It came to the conclusion that the registration certificate could be granted only after the dealer had incurred liability to pay the sales tax and it could not be granted from an earlier date. In other words there could be no restrospective grant of registration. It came to the conclusion that the registration certificate could be granted only after the dealer had incurred liability to pay the sales tax and it could not be granted from an earlier date. In other words there could be no restrospective grant of registration. It is not disputed that the dealer became liable to tax with effect from June 1, 1975. Applications for grant of registration were filed on July 7, 1975. Therefore, the earliest point of time with effect from which the registration could be granted was that date, i.e., July 7, 1975. Registration was, therefore, rightly granted from July 7, 1975 and could not be granted with effect from June 1, 1975. The aforesaid questions of law are, therefore, answered in favour of the department and against the dealer. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.