Retrospective sales tax registration is unavailable before tax liability arises; registration operates prospectively from the lawful effective date.

Under sales tax law, registration cannot be granted retrospectively from a date earlier than the dealer's tax liability. Where liability arises on the date a notification amending Schedule II comes into force, that date may mark the earliest point from which registration can operate, but not before it. Delay in filing the registration application does not create entitlement to an earlier effective date, and the application is considered from the date actually filed. The stated principle is that registration takes effect prospectively, subject to the statute, rather than from a prior date when tax liability first arose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration under the sales tax law could be granted retrospectively from the date of incurring tax liability; (ii) whether the dealer's liability to be assessed could be treated as operating from the date of the notification amending Schedule II; (iii) whether delay in filing the registration application could be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether registration under the sales tax law could be granted retrospectively from the date of incurring tax liability.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that registration can be granted only from the date on which the dealer becomes liable to tax and not from an earlier date. Since the application for registration was made after the liability had arisen, no retrospective registration was permissible.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the dealer and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the dealer's liability to be assessed could be treated as operating from the date of the notification amending Schedule II.

Analysis: The notification made the relevant items assessable from the date it came into force, and the dealer's liability arose accordingly from that date. The Court treated that date as the earliest point from which registration could validly be granted, but not earlier.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the dealer.

Issue (iii): Whether delay in filing the registration application could be condoned.

Analysis: The Court did not treat the alleged delay as giving rise to any entitlement to earlier registration, and the application was considered only from the date on which it was actually filed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the dealer and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the dealer, and the registration could operate only prospectively from the date of application, not from an earlier date on which tax liability first arose.

Ratio Decidendi: A registration certificate under a sales tax regime cannot be granted retrospectively from a date earlier than the dealer's liability to tax; it can take effect only from the date of application or later, as the statute permits.

---