Registration-linked tax forms cannot override statute; sales tax liability on disputed transactions must be by assessment proceedings.

Rule 46 of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 was read as limiting issue of form No. XVIII to a registered dealer, and prior issuance without registration could not override the statutory condition because there is no estoppel against law in taxation matters. The petitioners were therefore not entitled to the form unless registered under the Act and Rules. At the same time, mere application for registration or registration itself did not automatically fasten sales tax liability on the disputed transactions, which depended on whether the supplies were intra-State or inter-State and had to be determined in assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether form No. XVIII could be issued only to a registered dealer under the Tripura sales tax regime. (ii) Whether applying for registration or obtaining registration would by itself make the petitioners liable to tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.

Issue (i): Whether form No. XVIII could be issued only to a registered dealer under the Tripura sales tax regime.

Analysis: Rule 46 of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 was read as permitting issuance of form No. XVIII only to a registered dealer. The Court held that the statutory requirement could not be relaxed on the basis of earlier instances when the form had been issued despite the absence of registration, because there is no estoppel against law and estoppel does not apply to taxation law.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to form No. XVIII unless they were registered dealers under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976 and the Rules.

Issue (ii): Whether applying for registration or obtaining registration would by itself make the petitioners liable to tax under the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976.

Analysis: The liability to sales tax on the disputed transactions depended on whether the supplies were intra-State sales in Tripura or inter-State sales from Assam, which was treated as a mixed question of fact and law. The Court held that such liability could be determined only in an appropriate assessment proceeding and not merely from the fact of registration or from an application for registration.

Conclusion: Registration or an application for registration would not by itself fasten tax liability on the petitioners for the disputed transactions; that was left to assessment proceedings, if initiated.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with a limited protective direction on the effect of registration, while upholding the statutory requirement that form No. XVIII could be issued only to a registered dealer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute and its rules condition issuance of a statutory form on registration, the form cannot be issued contrary to that requirement, and registration for compliance purposes does not by itself determine tax liability on the underlying transactions, which must be decided in assessment proceedings.

---