https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162551 Cancellation of a dealer's registration was unsustainable because section 88(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 continued an existing registered dealer until a fresh certificate was granted, and neither the Act nor the Rules prescribed cancellation as a consequence of missing the Rule 4(8) time-limit for a fresh application. A procedural deadline in subordinate legislation could not, by itself, authorise loss of registration status without an express statutory consequence. The cancellation order was set aside, and the dealer was permitted to submit the application afresh for consideration under section 88(2). en-us Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Mar 2014 16:30:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162551 Cancellation of a dealer's registration was unsustainable because section 88(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 continued an existing registered dealer until a fresh certificate was granted, and neither the Act nor the Rules prescribed cancellation as a consequence of missing the Rule 4(8) time-limit for a fresh application. A procedural deadline in subordinate legislation could not, by itself, authorise loss of registration status without an express statutory consequence. The cancellation order was set aside, and the dealer was permitted to submit the application afresh for consideration under section 88(2). Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162551