Mandatory statutory registration requirements and civil declaratory suits: agent-filed firm registration was invalid, and civil relief was not barred.

A firm's registration under the Income-tax Act was treated as dependent on strict compliance with the prescribed mode of application, which required the partners or one of them to apply and a partner to sign the certificate. An application made by an agent was held not to satisfy that statutory requirement, rendering the registration without jurisdiction and void. The document also states that a civil suit seeking only a declaration that the registration was void was not barred by the Act, because the statutory prohibition was confined to suits to set aside or modify assessments. The existence of a statutory remedy did not by itself exclude declaratory civil jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the registration of the firm under the Income-tax Act was valid when the application for registration was made by an agent and not by the partners or any of them; (ii) Whether a civil suit for a declaration that the registration was void was barred by the Income-tax Act or by the existence of a statutory remedy under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the registration of the firm under the Income-tax Act was valid when the application for registration was made by an agent and not by the partners or any of them.

Analysis: Registration of a firm under the statutory scheme was treated as a condition precedent to the Income-tax Officer's power to act on the footing of a registered firm for super-tax purposes. The governing provisions required the application to be made in the prescribed manner by the partners or by one of them, and the associated certificate had to be signed by a partner. An application presented by an agent did not satisfy the prescribed mode of registration. The registration granted on such an application was therefore without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The registration was invalid, ultra vires, and void.

Issue (ii): Whether a civil suit for a declaration that the registration was void was barred by the Income-tax Act or by the existence of a statutory remedy under the Act.

Analysis: The statutory bar against civil suits was confined to suits to set aside or modify an assessment made under the Act. A suit confined to obtaining a declaration that the registration of the partnership instrument was void was not a suit to set aside or modify an assessment. The availability of a remedy under the Income-tax Act to seek cancellation of registration did not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to grant declaratory relief, and the concurrent statutory remedy did not by itself destroy the pre-existing right to sue.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and was not barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree below was set aside, and the appellant obtained a declaration that the registration of the partnership instrument was void. No opinion was expressed on the consequential effect of that declaration upon the assessment itself.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific manner for registration and makes that registration a condition for fiscal consequences, compliance with the prescribed mode is mandatory and an application made by an unauthorised person is ineffective; a civil declaratory suit is not barred unless it seeks to set aside or modify an assessment expressly covered by the statutory prohibition.

---