Recognition under section 4-B cannot be refused merely because a dealer sought or obtained section 4-A exemption.

Recognition under section 4-B(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had to be tested only against the conditions in the section 4-B notification. A dealer could not be denied recognition merely because it had applied for, or even obtained, exemption under section 4-A, since the relevant section 4-B notification contained no such disqualification. Conditions found in section 4-A notifications could regulate exemption under that provision, but they could not be imported into section 4-B to create an additional bar. The dealer was therefore entitled to recognition under section 4-B(2) from the date of its application.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer could be denied a recognition certificate under section 4-B(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 merely because it had also applied for, or been granted, exemption under section 4-A, and whether the notification conditions relied on by the Revenue could override the absence of any such restriction in the section 4-B notification.

Analysis: The recognition certificate under section 4-B(2) is governed by the requirements and conditions prescribed by the notification issued under that provision. The notification issued under section 4-B did not contain any condition excluding a dealer who had applied for or obtained exemption under section 4-A. The restriction relied on by the Revenue was found in notifications issued under section 4-A, not in the notification governing section 4-B. Those section 4-A notifications could regulate eligibility for exemption under section 4-A, but they could not be used to read an additional disqualifying condition into section 4-B(2). Even if the section 4-A notification was later amended, the question remained immaterial to entitlement under section 4-B because the governing section 4-B notification itself imposed no such bar. The mere filing of an application under section 4-A, or even the grant of such exemption, was therefore not a valid ground to refuse recognition under section 4-B.

Conclusion: The dealer was entitled to recognition under section 4-B(2) from the date of its application, and the Revenue's objection based on the section 4-A notifications failed.

---