Transporting agency registration under VAT law cannot be imposed by circular without express statutory authority.

A transporting agency operating within Kerala was not liable to registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 because the statutory definition of dealer did not expressly cover transporters and the registration provisions did not extend to them. Section 52 required such agencies to file returns and produce books and records, but it did not create a separate registration obligation. The circular directing registration exceeded the Commissioner's powers, as the Act contained no express legislative basis for imposing that requirement on transporting agencies. The impugned circular was therefore liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transporting agency functioning within the State is liable to registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the circular directing such registration is within the Commissioner's powers.

Analysis: The statutory definition of dealer covers persons engaged in buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods, and the registration provisions do not expressly include transporting agencies. Section 52 of the Act obliges such agencies to furnish returns and produce books and records, but it does not create a statutory mandate of registration. The power recognised in transport-related tax cases to require registration was treated as incidental to a statute that expressly provided for it; here, no such legislative provision exists. A transporting agency was held not to be an agent supplying or distributing goods within the relevant statutory scheme, and the words relied upon by the State were not broad enough to include it. The circular requiring registration therefore went beyond the powers conferred under the Act.

Conclusion: A transporting agency is not liable to be registered under the Act on the basis of the impugned circular, and the circular was liable to be set aside.

---