Registration fee liability stands, but unilateral penalty demand fails and export-sale tax assessment is remitted for fresh review.

Registration fee liability attached once registration was actually obtained and continued so long as the registration subsisted, regardless of any antecedent duty to register. An additional amount could not be demanded as penalty under a composition provision because composition requires the defaulter's assent; absent such consent, the statutory course was prosecution before the Magistrate, not unilateral recovery. The sales tax orders on export sales were vacated because the factual basis needed to apply the export-sale immunity principle had not been fully ascertained, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination by the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the registration fee and whether any additional amount could be demanded by way of penalty for non-payment; (ii) whether the levy of sales tax on export sales should be sustained or re-examined in light of the governing legal principle.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the registration fee and whether any additional amount could be demanded by way of penalty for non-payment.

Analysis: Liability to pay the registration fee arose from the fact of registration actually obtained, and it did not depend on whether there was an antecedent obligation to register. Once registration had been made, the fee became payable so long as the registration subsisted. The demand for an additional amount as penalty was not supportable under the statutory scheme, because the provision relied upon contemplated composition of the offence, which is a bilateral arrangement requiring the defaulter's assent. In the absence of such composition, the proper course was prosecution before the Magistrate and not unilateral collection of an amount as if composition had occurred.

Conclusion: The petitioners remained liable for the registration fee, but the additional demand by way of penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of sales tax on export sales should be sustained or re-examined in light of the governing legal principle.

Analysis: The petitioners relied on the principle that sales which culminate in export are immune from sales tax. Since the authorities had not fully ascertained all facts necessary to apply that principle, and since further adjustment of the parties' rights might be required, the matter was not finally adjudicated on merits. The proper course was to vacate the impugned sales tax orders and remit the matter for fresh determination by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The sales tax orders were vacated and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of invalidating the penalty demand and obtaining remand of the sales tax assessment for reconsideration, while the registration fee liability was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision for composition of an offence cannot be enforced unilaterally by the State as a penalty demand in the absence of the defaulter's consent, and export sales require factual re-examination before sales tax liability can be affirmed.

---