ORDER R.S. Jha, J. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order of rejection of his application for permanent registration (Annexure P-13) dated 8-7-1988 and the order dismissing his revision dated 25-2-1981 (Annexure P-16). The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had applied for provisional registration u/s 16(B) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and he had been granted a provisional registration certificate on 22-3-1986 vide Annexure P-5 which was valid upto 31-12-1987. The petitioner with a view to obtaining permanent registration appiied for the same u/s 15 of the Act on 9-1-1987 but the respondents/authorities did not grant him registration, on 26-5-1988 the respondents issued a letter asking the petitioner to give proof of his having applied for permanent registration on 9-1-1987 as well as proof of having submitted the requisite fees. Thereafter the respondent/authority vide order dated 8-7-1988 rejected the application filed by the petitioner for grant of permanent registration with effect from 9-1-1987 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had applied for permanent registration on 9-1-1987 and had also not deposited the requisite fees. The petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection filed a revision before the revisional authority which has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 25-2-1991. While dismissing the revision categorical finding have been recorded by the revisional authority that the petitioner has failed to prove filing of an application for permanent registration, that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the authority about the payment of requisite registration fees and that the petitioner after filing the alleged application on 9-1-1987 has slept over it for a considerable period of time. Before this Court, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 and Section 16-B of the Act, the petitioner on obtaining a provisional registration certificate, is entitled to all the benefits available to a registered dealer having permanent registration and therefore, he should be treated as a permanently registered dealer from the initial date of provisional registration and the intervening period for which he has been treated as a registered dealer should be regularised and the assessment to tax for this period be quashed. It is also contended that it was the duty and responsibility of the respondent/authorities to produce his application for permanent registration, the acknowledgment of which has been filed by him before the authorities, therefore, for the lapse which has been committed by the authorities, the petitioner cannot be penalized. It is further contended that the finding recorded by the authorities regarding non-deposit of fees is also perverse. On these grounds the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order. The learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State contends that the alleged application for permanent registration dated 9-1-1987 was never filed as it is not available on record nor has any entry been made in the relevant register available with the authorities and therefore, the competent authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not filed any application on 9-1-1987. He also submits that in spite of written notice, the petitioner had failed to submit any satisfactory proof of depositing the requisite fees or filing of the application. It is also submitted that the conclusion reached by the authorities after careful scrutiny of the facts is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties extensively. To properly appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions of law. Section 15 of the Act provides for permanent registration of dealers. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 lays down that an application for permanent registration shall be accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of fees. Section 16(B) of the Act, provides for provisional registration of intending manufacturers. Sub-section (1) of Section 16(B) lays down that on an application accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of registration fee being made by an intending manufacturer, he shall be granted a provisional certificate of registration which will be effective from the date on which the person has applied for provisional registration as per Sub-section (3) of Section 16(B). Sub-section (4) of Section 16(B), limits the life of the provisional certificate to such period as may be specified in the certificate. Sub-section (5) of this section is a deeming provision which specifies that on obtaining a provisional certificate of registration a dealer should be deemed to be a registered dealer. Sub-section (4) of Section 16(B), limits the life of the provisional certificate to such period as may be specified in the certificate. Sub-section (5) of this section is a deeming provision which specifies that on obtaining a provisional certificate of registration a dealer should be deemed to be a registered dealer. Thus, the scheme of the statutory provisions is that an intending manufacturer may obtain a provisional registration certificate by filing of an application u/s 16(B) along with satisfactory proof of payment of requisite fees and on such application being made a provisional registration certificate shall be issued by the Commissioner for a specific period. During this period the dealer shall be deemed to be a registered dealer. The provisional registration certificate shall by operation of law cease to have any effect after the date specified in the certificate. In the meantime, the dealer may apply afresh for permanent registration u/s 15 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act along with satisfactory proof of having paid the registration fees and on such application being made the dealer shall be granted permanent registration. On such permanent registration being granted the provisional certificate of registration shall cease to exist. In the instant case, the petitioner had applied for provisional registration certificate along with the requisite fees and was granted provisional registration for the period from 31-12-1986 till 31-12-1987. The petitioner contends that he had filed an application for permanent registration on 9-1-1987. However, no such application is available on record. From a perusal of the record which was made available at the time of hearing, it is firmly established that the petitioner had not filed any application on 9-1-1987 and failed to substantiate this fact in spite of opportunity being given by the authorities. The findings of the authorities in this respect is based on the documents on record and does not suffer from any infirmity and is therefore upheld. The petitioner has failed to persuade this Court that along with the application the petitioner had filed the requisite registration fees. In view of the statutory provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act there is a statutory obligation cast upon the dealer to make an application accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of fees. The petitioner has failed to persuade this Court that along with the application the petitioner had filed the requisite registration fees. In view of the statutory provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act there is a statutory obligation cast upon the dealer to make an application accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of fees. In case a dealer fails to do so, there is no corresponding obligation upon the authorities to consider such a mis-conceived application and rightly so as, in my opinion, it is no application in the eyes of law. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the lacuna being pointed out the petitioner had paid the requisite sum of Rs. 50/- on 9-3-1987 vide challan No. 1/10 dated 9-3-1987 and therefore, the petitioner should have been granted benefit from this date. this Court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted for two reasons: (a) Firstly, that the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act provide that the petitioner must give satisfactory proof of payment of fees along with an application. Making the payment is not enough, the duty casts by the statutory provisions is that the petitioner is required to furnish satisfactory proof of payment of requisite fees along with an application for registration. The petitioner has failed to do so. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not deposit any fees along with the application. (b) Secondly, even otherwise the authorities after careful scrutiny of the records have found that the petitioner has not deposited any fees upto 9-3-1987 as alleged by the petitioner. For the abovementioned reasons, the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner are rejected. The authorities by giving detailed reasons and on careful scrutiny of the records have recorded the finding that the petitioner had not applied for permanent registration on 9-1-1987 and that he has not submitted satisfactory proof of payment of the requisite fees along with the application on 9-1-1987. this Court would not indulge in sifting of facts, or reopening findings of facts, more so, as in the present case, no compelling document or fact has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner which would persuade us to reopen findings based on proper appreciation of the record. this Court would not indulge in sifting of facts, or reopening findings of facts, more so, as in the present case, no compelling document or fact has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner which would persuade us to reopen findings based on proper appreciation of the record. I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders do not suffer from any perversity or manifest illegality and therefore, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed