1995 (6) TMI 188 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Orders Registration Certificates under Sales Tax Acts, Awards Costs

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to issue registration certificates to the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales ... - Issues Involved:1. Inaction of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in issuing registration certificates.2. Interpretation and application of Rule 28(10)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957.3. Compliance with procedural requirements for registration under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.4. Requirement and provision of security deposits.5. Timely processing and enquiry by the registering authority.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Inaction of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in issuing registration certificates:The petitioner, a proprietary concern, applied for registration certificates under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Despite submitting the applications on August 16, 1994, and complying with subsequent requests for additional information, the certificates were not issued. The petitioner contended that the delay and inaction violated Rule 28(10)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which mandates that if no certificate or notice is received within 30 days, the applicant is deemed registered.2. Interpretation and application of Rule 28(10)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957:The court examined Rule 28(10)(c), which states, 'if the certificate of registration is not received by the applicant within 30 days from the date of submission of his application or if no notice is received by him within the period of 30 days from the date of submission of the application, the applicant shall be deemed to have been registered.' The court emphasized that this rule must be read in conjunction with other provisions of Rule 28 and the purpose of dealer registration under the Act. The court concluded that the first respondent's notice dated August 17, 1994, received by the petitioner on September 8, 1994, did not constitute a valid notice of further enquiry as required by Rule 28(10)(b).3. Compliance with procedural requirements for registration under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:The court noted that the petitioner submitted all required information and documents promptly. The first respondent's delay in initiating the enquiry and issuing subsequent notices violated the mandated time frames. The court criticized the first respondent's lack of diligence and the issuance of notices with insubstantial objections, which did not align with the procedural requirements of the Acts and Rules.4. Requirement and provision of security deposits:The first respondent demanded a security deposit of Rs. 2,00,000 in the form of National Savings Certificate bonds. The court held that such a demand must be made through an order in writing, stating reasons, and after giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard, as required by Section 12(7) and (11) of the Act. The court found that the first respondent failed to follow this procedure, rendering the security demand invalid.5. Timely processing and enquiry by the registering authority:The court emphasized that the registering authority must conduct and complete the necessary enquiry expeditiously within the 30-day period mandated by Rule 28(10)(a). The court found that the first respondent did not act within this period, and the subsequent delays were unjustified. The court concluded that the petitioner must be deemed to have been duly registered from the date of his application, as the first respondent failed to issue a valid notice of further enquiry within the required time frame.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to issue registration certificates to the petitioner under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The court awarded costs to the petitioner and fixed the advocate's fee at Rs. 750.