https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162532 A registered dealer's temporary shift of business premises, without mala fide intent and while continuing to file returns and pay tax regularly, did not justify cancellation of registration. Although section 48 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and rule 12 required intimation of a change of premises, the authority failed to consider the dealer's explanation, and the breach was treated as a procedural default. The court held that the proper consequence was the statutory penalty under rule 92, not the extreme measure of cancellation of registration. The cancellation orders were set aside. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162532 A registered dealer's temporary shift of business premises, without mala fide intent and while continuing to file returns and pay tax regularly, did not justify cancellation of registration. Although section 48 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and rule 12 required intimation of a change of premises, the authority failed to consider the dealer's explanation, and the breach was treated as a procedural default. The court held that the proper consequence was the statutory penalty under rule 92, not the extreme measure of cancellation of registration. The cancellation orders were set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162532