Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2752 (MAD)

MAJRI STEELS v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TIRUCHY.

2007-08-29

V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

body2007
ORDER V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN J. - The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Government of Tamil Nadu introduced the value added tax under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 with effect from January 1, 2007 in the State of Tamil Nadu. Under the Act, all the registered dealers are obliged to submit an application for obtaining fresh certificate of registration on or before January 31, 2007 and a grace time up to February 15, 2007 was allowed. On the ground that the petitioner failed to apply even before the expiry of the grace time, the first respondent issued the impugned order dated May 31, 2007, cancelling the TIN assigned to the petitioner under the Act. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. Heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. There is no dispute about the fact that January 31, 2007 was fixed as the deadline for applying for the certificate of registration under the new Act. The deadline was extended up to February 15, 2007. The petitioner claims to have sent an application on January 18, 2007 by ordinary post. But it is disputed by the respondents. The respondents claim that they never received any such application from the petitioner. As a consequence of the respondents' claim that they did not receive any application from the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the question that has to be considered in the writ petition is as to what are the consequences of failure of a person to submit an application in time. Under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a provision was incorporated under section 88(2), which reads as follows : "Section 88(2). Therefore, the question that has to be considered in the writ petition is as to what are the consequences of failure of a person to submit an application in time. Under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a provision was incorporated under section 88(2), which reads as follows : "Section 88(2). - A registered dealer, who would have continued to be so under the said Act or 1970 Act, as the case may be, had this Act not come into force, shall be a registered dealer till a fresh certificate of registration is granted to him under this Act." It is seen that a person who was a registered dealer under the Act or Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, was declared under the aforesaid section 88(2) as a registered dealer under the new Act till the certificate of registration was granted to him under the Act. The Act by itself did not stipulate any consequence of a person not applying for fresh certificate of registration under the new Act. It is only under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 that the requirement to apply in a particular format before the particular time-limit was prescribed. Rule 4(8) of the Rules reads as follows : "Rule 4(8). - Every registered dealer whose certificate of registration was in force under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Act, 1959 shall file an application in Form A along with a sufficiently stamped self addressed envelope to the registering authority without payment of specified fee (before the 15th day of February, 2007)." A reading of section 88(2) together with rule 4(8) shows that a time-limit for submitting an application was fixed not under the statute, but under the subordinate legislation. Neither the Act nor the subordinate legislation prescribed the consequences of the failure of a registered dealer to apply within the time-limit prescribed. If that be so, the first respondent ought not to have issued the impugned order cancelling the registration even if the petitioner had not filed an application on January 18, 2007. Under such circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, it is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to submit an application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Under such circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, it is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to submit an application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon the petitioner submitting such an application, the first respondent shall apply the provisions of section 88(2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.