Judgment :- 1. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of the firm and the petitioner has applied for sales tax registration under TNVAT Act and has submitted the application form with connected records to the second respondent for getting tax payer identification number for the business. The petitioner has filed the application form for new registration under TNVAT Act 2006 on 02.04.2012. The application for sales tax registration along with D.D., for Rs.500/- was received by the second respondent. Such application was made by the petitioner for doing business in Stainless Steel Pipes ferrous and non ferrous metals. The second respondent has referred the new registration application to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing, Chennai North. The place of business was verified by the Enforcement Wing Officials and thereafter, the second respondent has rejected the application in RC 300/2012 dated 04.06.2012 stating the the new registration application was rejected on the ground that the place of business was consisted of 80 sq.ft., and therefore, it is not possible to do business. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner complied with all the provisions of the Act and Rules and also filled up all the columns in Form A and no defect was pointed out by the second respondent and under such circumstances, there is no impediment for the second respondent to grant registration under TNVAT Act, 2006. He further submitted that the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the registration is not in accordance with law and hence the same may be set aside. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Taxes) submits that the enforcement wing officials inspected the place of business and found that it was only 80 sq.ft and hence, on such verification, the second respondent rejected the registration that with 80 sq ft place, it is not possible to conduct business. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. Section 39 of TNVAT Act deals with procedure of Registration. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. Section 39 of TNVAT Act deals with procedure of Registration. Application for registration shall be made to such authority, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by fee of Rs.500/-for the principal place of business and in addition, a further fee of fity rupees in respect of each of the places of business other than the principal place of business. In the present case, the petitioner complied with the procedure contemplaced under Section 39 of the Act. Rule 5 of the TNVAT Rules also deals with certificate of registration and contemplates that registering authority on receipt of the application in Form A shall acknowledge the receipt and on satisfaction that the application is in order, the authority shall assign tax payer identification number and issue certificate for registration within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. If the authority found any defect in the application, the certificate of registration cannot be issued, the authority shall give the applicant a notice to show cause against rejection of the application within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application. Form A is prescribed for applying registration. There is no dispute that the petitioner had satisfied the provisions relating to application for registration in Form A. The second respondent rejected the registration by order dated 04.06.2012 stating as below:- "The place of business was verified by the Enforcement Wing Officer. AT the time of verification on 07.05.2012, a person namely Thiru Udaya Raj S/o.Dakra Ram was present and stated that the applicant had gone to his native place. It was found that the place of business was consisted of 80 sq.ft., only and it is not possible to do business in SS Pipe and all kind of metals in the proposed place of business which consist of 80 sq.ft. In the circumstances, stating the above position their registration application was returned to the applicant through notice in RC.300/12/A2 dated 11.05.2012. To the above mentioned notice, the dealers have filed a letter dated 16.05.2012 wherein they stated that they are not keeping of materials in their shop ; but the materials are to be supplied to the customers against purchase orders. So they stated that no additional place is required to them. To the above mentioned notice, the dealers have filed a letter dated 16.05.2012 wherein they stated that they are not keeping of materials in their shop ; but the materials are to be supplied to the customers against purchase orders. So they stated that no additional place is required to them. Therefore, they requested to grant registration under TNVAt Act, 2006." From the reading of the above paragraph, it is clear that the respondent has stated that place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing, it was found that place of business consisted of 80 sq.ft., and that it is not possible to do business in SS Pipe and the respondent also returned the registration application. The petitioner also filed a letter dated 16.05.2012 to the second respondent stating that they are not keeping any materials in the shop but to be supplied to the customer against the purchase order. It is further stated that the additional place of business is not readily available now. However, the second respondent without considering the scope of relevant provision relating to Form A, rejected the registration stating that the objections raised in the letter dated 16.05.2012 were not satisfactory and the place of business is not sufficient to do business. However, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) is unable to point out any specific provision under the Act and Rules regarding the requirement of space for carrying on the business. There is no such condition prescribed under the Act specifying such required area for conducting business. Due to technological development in the present time, business can be carried on in less space and the dealers can supply materials against the purchase order directly to the customers and there is no necessity for enormous space. Learned Government Advocate (Taxes) also submitted the Circular No.11/2011 dated 25.03.2011 was issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the nature of guidelines. Paragraph 4 of the said circular reads as under:- "4. Prior inspection is not necessary and need not be insisted upon except for the dealers seeking Registration Certificate for any of the following evasion prone commodities mentioned in the reference 4th cited. a) Electrical Goods b) Iron and Steel c) Tiles and Marbles and d) Timber" Reading of the above circular makes it clear that prior inspection is not necessary except for the evasion prone commodities. a) Electrical Goods b) Iron and Steel c) Tiles and Marbles and d) Timber" Reading of the above circular makes it clear that prior inspection is not necessary except for the evasion prone commodities. However, such guideline or instruction issued to the Registering Authorities is only for the purpose of inspection and it does not enable the authorities to determine the extent of land for carrying on the business. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to genuinity of the business that is going to be carried on at the place of business. Further, it is not for the Revenue to suggest the extent of land that is necessary to carry on the business. It is for the businessman to decide the same. The Revenue should not obstruct the assessee from carrying on the business at every stage with the Tax Collectors point of view, but would deal with the matter at the point of view of assessee. In such circumstances, the reason given by the respondent is not in accordance with law and against the provisions of the Act and Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.06.2012 of the second respondent is set aside with a direction to the respondents to issue Registration Certificate as contemplated under the Act. Learned Government Advocate (Taxes) submits that the second respondent had already returned the Application Form to the petitioner. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that they have not received the same. In such circumstances, if the petitioner is in receipt of application form, this Court directs the petitioner to re-submit the application for registration as contemplated under the Act within one week from today. On receipt of such application for Registration, the second respondent is directed to pass suitable orders with regard to tax payer identification number for the business within two weeks thereafter. 6. The writ petition stands allowed with the above direction. No costs.