Registration cannot be denied for pending predecessor demands where no statute authorises refusal on unadjudicated liabilities.

Pending show-cause notices and unconfirmed demands against a predecessor registrant did not justify refusing registration to a new applicant for the same premises. In the absence of any statutory provision authorising denial on that basis, the authority could not indefinitely block registration merely because surrender formalities of the earlier registrant were disputed or liabilities remained unadjudicated. The Revenue's interest could be protected if dues were later established, but the pendency of proceedings alone was not a lawful ground to reject the application. The refusal of registration was therefore set aside and the applicant's entitlement to register the premises was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether registration to a new manufacturer could be denied for premises earlier occupied by another registrant whose surrender was not accepted because show-cause notices and alleged dues were still pending.

Analysis: The application for registration was rejected on the footing that the predecessor registrant had not complied with the surrender formalities under Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) and that several demand notices were pending. The pending notices had not culminated in confirmed dues, and the Revenue's interest could be protected against the premises if liabilities were later established. The existence of undecided proceedings against the predecessor registrant could not be treated as a lawful basis to indefinitely block registration of another person, particularly when no statutory provision empowered such refusal merely because demands against the predecessor remained unadjudicated.

Conclusion: Registration could not be denied on the ground of pending demand notices against the predecessor registrant, and the assessee was entitled to registration.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing registration was set aside and the assessee's entitlement to register the premises was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Pending and unconfirmed dues against a predecessor registrant do not, by themselves, justify refusal of registration to a subsequent applicant in the absence of a statutory provision authorising such denial.

---