https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156940 Rule 25-A(3) required deposit of the prescribed fee for renewal of a recognition certificate, and rule 25-A(7) allowed rejection where the fee was not paid. The proviso to rule 25-A(7), however, required a reasonable opportunity to correct or complete the application before rejection. Where the dealer's application remained pending, a refund had already accrued with the department, and the dealer sought adjustment of that refundable amount after notice, compliance through lawful adjustment was treated as sufficient in the circumstances. The rejection on non-payment of fee was therefore not justified and the renewal could not be refused on that ground. en-us Tue, 07 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 14:54:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156940 Rule 25-A(3) required deposit of the prescribed fee for renewal of a recognition certificate, and rule 25-A(7) allowed rejection where the fee was not paid. The proviso to rule 25-A(7), however, required a reasonable opportunity to correct or complete the application before rejection. Where the dealer's application remained pending, a refund had already accrued with the department, and the dealer sought adjustment of that refundable amount after notice, compliance through lawful adjustment was treated as sufficient in the circumstances. The rejection on non-payment of fee was therefore not justified and the renewal could not be refused on that ground. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156940