Recognition certificate renewal requires fee compliance, but pending refund adjustment after notice can cure the defect.

Rule 25-A(3) required deposit of the prescribed fee for renewal of a recognition certificate, and rule 25-A(7) allowed rejection where the fee was not paid. The proviso to rule 25-A(7), however, required a reasonable opportunity to correct or complete the application before rejection. Where the dealer's application remained pending, a refund had already accrued with the department, and the dealer sought adjustment of that refundable amount after notice, compliance through lawful adjustment was treated as sufficient in the circumstances. The rejection on non-payment of fee was therefore not justified and the renewal could not be refused on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the dealer's application for renewal of the recognition certificate was valid when the prescribed fee had not been separately deposited at the time of application, but the dealer sought adjustment of the fee from an admitted refund while the application remained pending.

Analysis: Rule 25-A(3) required payment of the prescribed fee for a recognition certificate, and rule 25-A(7) empowered rejection where the fee was not paid. However, the proviso to rule 25-A(7) mandated that before rejection the dealer must be given a reasonable opportunity to correct or complete the application or comply with the fee requirement. The application had remained pending for years, the dealer was later notified and responded by requesting adjustment of the fee from amounts lying refundable with the department, and the refund position had already come into existence by the time the authority proceeded to reject the application. Reading rule 25-A(3), rule 25-A(5), and the proviso to rule 25-A(7) together, the Court treated compliance after notice through lawful adjustment as sufficient to deny rejection in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The rejection was unjustified and the application could not be refused on that ground; the impugned order was liable to be quashed and recognition certificate was to be granted for the relevant years.

---