Procedural non-intimation of business premises change warrants penalty, not cancellation of registration, where compliance continued and no mala fide was shown.

A registered dealer's temporary shift of business premises, without mala fide intent and while continuing to file returns and pay tax regularly, did not justify cancellation of registration. Although section 48 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and rule 12 required intimation of a change of premises, the authority failed to consider the dealer's explanation, and the breach was treated as a procedural default. The court held that the proper consequence was the statutory penalty under rule 92, not the extreme measure of cancellation of registration. The cancellation orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether cancellation of registration was justified for failure to intimate a temporary change of business premises, and whether the matter warranted penalty instead of cancellation.

Analysis: The dealer had changed the business premises temporarily but continued to file returns and pay commercial tax regularly. The record showed no material suggesting deliberate suppression or mala fide conduct. Although section 48 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Niyam, 1995 required intimation of a change of business premises, the explanation furnished in reply to the show-cause notice was not considered by the authority. In the circumstances, the breach was procedural and attracted the penal provision under rule 92 rather than the extreme consequence of cancellation of registration.

Conclusion: Cancellation of registration was not justified; the impugned orders were liable to be set aside and the assessee was only liable to the penalty prescribed for the default in furnishing intimation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the registration-cancellation orders were quashed, and the matter was confined to imposition of the statutory penalty for the procedural lapse.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a registered dealer temporarily shifts business premises without mala fide intent and continues compliance with tax returns, non-intimation of the change may warrant penalty under the rules but does not by itself justify cancellation of registration.

---