Sales tax registration relates back to the application date, barring unregistered assessment and non-registration penalty.

Liability under the sales tax law depended on whether the dealer's gross turnover had crossed the statutory threshold in the relevant period; on the Tribunal's finding that turnover up to 31 March 1972 remained below that limit, liability could not be fixed from 1 April 1972, and the correct date had to be determined by the Tribunal. Registration was treated as effective from the date of application, so once registration was allowed, assessment under section 12(5) as an unregistered dealer and the penalty for non-registration could not stand for the covered period.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether liability could be fixed from 1st April, 1972, in the facts of the case; (ii) whether assessment under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and penalty for non-registration were justified after the application for registration.

Issue (i): whether liability could be fixed from 1st April, 1972, in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Liability under the sales tax law depended on the gross turnover exceeding the prescribed limit in the relevant preceding period. The finding of the Tribunal showed that the turnover up to 31st March, 1972, was below the statutory threshold. On that factual basis, liability could not arise from 1st April, 1972. The matter was left to the Tribunal under section 24(5) to determine the correct date, if any, from which liability could attach.

Conclusion: The fixation of liability from 1st April, 1972, was not justified and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether assessment under section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and penalty for non-registration were justified after the application for registration.

Analysis: The assessment was made on a yearly basis, and the application for registration had been made on 13th December, 1972 and was subsequently allowed. Registration was treated as taking effect from the date of application. Once the assessee was regarded as a registered dealer during the relevant period, assessment under section 12(5) for that period could not stand, and no penalty could be imposed for non-registration.

Conclusion: The assessment under section 12(5) and the penalty for non-registration were not justified and were in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on all substantive questions, with the liability date set aside and the assessment and penalty objections accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where registration is granted, it relates back to the date of application, and a dealer cannot be subjected to assessment as an unregistered dealer or penalised for non-registration for the period covered by that effective date.

---