Belated renewal of sales tax registration certificate rejected where statutory renewal period had expired and amended rules governed the issue.

Renewal of a sales tax registration certificate had to be sought during March, with a limited extension up to 30 April on payment of penalty; failing renewal within that period deemed the certificate cancelled. On the admitted facts, the renewal request was made only in July 2005, well after the statutory deadline, so refusal to accept the belated renewal fee and rejection of renewal were upheld. Earlier relief-based decisions were distinguished on special facts where the certificate form was misleading, and a prior ruling was not followed because it did not consider the amended rules; an order made without reference to the governing provisions could be treated as per incuriam.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the belated renewal application for registration certificate under the sales tax law was valid, and whether the earlier decisions relied on by the petitioner could be followed in the absence of consideration of the amended statutory provisions.

Analysis: Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Rule 24(9) and Rule 24(9-A) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules required renewal of the registration certificate during March, with a further period up to 30 April on payment of penalty. The certificate was deemed cancelled if not renewed within the prescribed time. On the admitted facts, the petitioner had not sought renewal for the relevant years until July 2005, long after the statutory period had expired. The earlier decision granting relief was distinguished on its special facts, where the certificate form itself was misleading and did not disclose the expiry date. The decision in Fisher Pumps was not followed because the relevant original and extended periods under the amended rules were not considered there, and an order rendered without reference to the governing statutory provisions could be treated as per incuriam.

Conclusion: The refusal to accept the delayed renewal fee and the rejection of the renewal request were upheld.

---