Retrospective sales tax registration cannot be denied solely for delayed late-fee payment where the fee was later paid.

Retrospective registration under the Central Sales Tax Act could not be refused merely because the late fee was deposited after the application, where the delay arose from the same cause as the State registration request and the fee was eventually paid. The provision required payment of late fee for continuing default but did not impose an outer time-limit barring consideration of retrospective effect. On identical facts, retrospective registration had already been granted under the State sales tax regime, so denial under the Central Act on the sole ground of delayed fee payment was unsustainable. The petitioner was entitled to retrospective registration from 1 April 1981, and the penalty notice for the intervening period could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective registration under the Central Sales Tax Act from 1 April 1981 despite delayed deposit of the late fee, and whether the consequent penalty notice for the intervening period could stand.

Analysis: The firm had applied for registration under both the State and Central sales tax regimes on the same date and the delay was explained by the same cause. The only ground for refusing retrospective effect under the Central Sales Tax Act was that the late fee had not been deposited along with the application, although it was later paid. The relevant provision contemplated payment of late fee for continuing default and did not prescribe any outer time-limit that barred consideration of retrospective registration merely because the fee was deposited later. The same authority had already granted retrospective registration under the State Act on identical facts, so rejection under the Central Act solely for delayed fee payment was not justified.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to retrospective registration from 1 April 1981 under the Central Sales Tax Act, and the refusal based only on late deposit of fee was unsustainable.

---