https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163774 Failure to apply for fresh registration within the time prescribed by Rule 4(8) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 did not by itself justify cancellation of registration. Section 88(2) treated an existing registered dealer as continuing to be registered until a fresh certificate was granted, and neither the Act nor the Rules provided any express sanction for automatic cancellation on delay alone. In the absence of a statutory consequence, cancellation solely for late filing was unsustainable. The cancellation was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:06:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163774 Failure to apply for fresh registration within the time prescribed by Rule 4(8) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 did not by itself justify cancellation of registration. Section 88(2) treated an existing registered dealer as continuing to be registered until a fresh certificate was granted, and neither the Act nor the Rules provided any express sanction for automatic cancellation on delay alone. In the absence of a statutory consequence, cancellation solely for late filing was unsustainable. The cancellation was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163774