TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, contemplates, is a "satisfaction" without any limits or fetters? (iv) Whether refusal of "registration", in the present case, both under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is based on irrelevant considerations having no nexus with the object behind incorporating the provisions for "registration" under the said Acts, and, if so, whether the refusal to register the petitioner as a "dealer", under the relevant fiscal statutes, suffers from malice in law, if not malice in fact? (v) Whether the petitioner is, in the facts and attending circumstances, entitled to compensation on account of the conduct of the respondents in not allowing "registration" to the petitioner as "dealer", under the relevant fiscal statutes, so as to enable the petitioner to carry on its business? Before one attempts to answer the questions posed above, imperative it is to take into consideration the circumstances, whereunder the present writ petition has come to be filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The material facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, may, therefore, be first noted.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50 MT of coal into the State of Tripura without having been registered as a "dealer". Responding to the notice, dated March 22, 2010, aforementioned the petitioner submitted its reply, on March 24, 2010, stating, inter alia, that the petitioner-company had already applied for its "registration" as a "dealer" under the TVAT Act, 2004, as well as the CST Act, 1956, and the same were pending consideration by the authorities concerned. The reply, submitted by the writ petitioner, was followed by an order, dated March 25, 2010, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Vigilance Cell, raising a demand of Rs. 3,71,535, which included the taxable liability as well as penalty to the extent of 150 per cent of the taxable liability. The demand, so raised, was satisfied by the petitioner by making payment of the said sum of Rs. 3,71,535 subject to the condition that the payment was being made under protest inasmuch as the petitioner was in dire need of the "certificate of registration" as huge quantity of coal had been purchased by the petitioner and had to be unloaded at the railway stockyard and that the petitioner had been paying wharfage and demurrage charges to the railways. (iv) As the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner-company and that it was, therefore, not necessary that the identity and/or particulars of shareholders of the said Westwell Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., be disclosed by furnishing their particulars and photographs. With regard to the trade licence/permission, the petitioner stated that trading in coal is not subject to any licence/permission by the Government of India and that the petitioner was not having any business with the Coal India Ltd. The petitioner also submitted a copy of the agreement entered into for import of coal from outside the State of Tripura. The petitioner further stated that the guidelines and modalities had been duly stated in the petitioner-company's profile. (vi) In continuation to the communication, dated July 9, 2010, the petitioner, by another communication, informed the respondents that, in the State of Meghalaya, coal is sold in open market and, therefore, one need not enter into any agreement for the purpose of procuring coal and/or for each transaction of coal. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide communication, dated July 22, 2010, informed the respondents that a huge stock of coal, imported by the petitioner, had been lying at Bihar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the petitioner in both the application forms for "registration", though the said address had been mentioned in the petitioner's official pad, and that the information, with regard to the movable and immovable properties of the Board of Directors of the petitionercompany, had not been furnished in the petitioner's application. (viii) On receiving the respondent's communication rejecting the petitioner's applications for "registration", the petitioner submitted representations to respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to rectify the defects shown in the rejection order, dated August 31, 2010, aforementioned and, challenging the rejection order aforementioned, the petitioner also approached respondent No. 2, namely, Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura. By order, dated November 23, 2010, respondent No. 2 allowed the petitioner the remove the defects in its applications for "registration" by submitting fresh applications, both under the TVAT Act, 2004, and CST Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 also directed respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioner's revised applications as per the provisions of the relevant Acts and Rules on removal of the defects. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... requisite certificates in respect of factory and boiler, the petitioner stated that as no "registration" had been given to the petitioner-company by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner did not apply either for factory land or for permission to install boiler and, therefore, certificate, in respect of factory and boiler, could not be furnished. As regards the certificate of incorporation, the petitioner informed respondent No. 3 that in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, certificate of incorporation of a company is not issued afresh unless the name of the company is changed and, in the case of the petitionercompany, since only the registered office had been changed, the petitionercompany had already submitted requisite form (form 18) along with requisite challan, dated March 12, 2010, in terms of the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956, for recording change of address of the petitionercompany. The petitioner-company submitted a copy of form 18 along with a copy of the challan, dated March 12, 2010, aforementioned for necessary consideration by the respondent authority. The petitioner further informed the respondent-authority that the petitioner-company was not in the busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tution, challenging the legality of the conduct of the respondents/authorities concerned in dealing with the petitioner's applications for grant of "registration" certificate under the relevant fiscal statutes and also claiming compensation for the loss, which the petitioner claims to have sustained due to the respondents' refusal to grant "registration" certificate to the petitioner. Submissions Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel, made multifold submissions assailing the actions of the respondents in not granting "registration certificates" to the petitioner and in, eventually,rejecting the said applications by their order, dated February 4, 2011. It has been pointed out by Dr. Saraf that the basic object behind "registration" of a "dealer", under the sales tax statutes, is to keep track of the taxable transactions, which may take place within a State, and to ensure effective levy and collection of tax on such transactions. Dr. Saraf relies, in this regard, on the decision in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 766, wherein the Supreme Court held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, are wholly irrelevant and immaterial for the purpose of granting of "registration" and, hence, calling of further information by respondent No. 3 is wholly impermissible in law. In fact, submits Dr. Saraf, the refusal to register the petitioner, as a "dealer" under the relevant statutes, is for reasons other than bona fide and, hence, such a decision may not be sustained. Dr. Saraf reiterates that the "satisfaction", which is required to be arrived at by the authorities concerned, in the matter of granting of "registration", has to have nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the Act by means of compulsory "registration" of a "dealer". The learned Senior counsel further submits that the sales tax authorities cannot take into consideration, in refusing "registration" of a "dealer", such materials, which are irrelevant and have no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. Support for his submission is sought to be derived by Dr. Saraf from the decision of the Calcutta High Court, in Durga Prasad Khaitan v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1957] 8 STC 105 (Cal), and also the decision of the Supreme Court, in Indian Nut Products v. Union of India reported in [1994]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute right to reject the application. In the case at hand too, according to Mr. Pal, the petitioner had failed to submit all the documents, which had been asked for, and, hence, rejection of the petitioner's application was wholly tenable in law. Yet another interesting submission, made by Mr. Pal, is that coal is not required, in usual course of business, in the State of Tripura, and no certificate of registration, in respect of trading in coal, has been issued, in the past, in the State of Tripura, to other private businessman for trading in coal in the market of Tripura, and, hence, the petitioner cannot insist that the petitioner be registered as a "dealer" in the trading of coal. This apart, according to Mr. Pal, there is a requirement of submission of pollution certificate in every case of using coal and the petitioner has failed to furnish the requisite pollution certificate. On this aspect of his submission, Mr. Pal heavily relies on para 6.6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which is repro duced below: "6.6. That the respondents clearly state 'COAL' is not required in usual course of business in Tripura. There is no domestic use of 'coal' in Tripura ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... industrial unit to establish and operate an industrial plant in an air pollution control area. Dr. Saraf submits that the petitioner has applied for registration for trading in coal; hence, rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of non-production of pollution certificate is totally on irrelevant consideration and the decision, reflected by the impugned order, dated February 4, 2011, which is based on such irrelevant consideration, is liable to be set aside and quashed. As regards non-submission of registered lease deed for stockyard of the company for stone boulders, it is submitted by Dr. Saraf that registration of a lease deed in respect of stock yard is, again, an irrelevant consideration inasmuch as the sales tax authority is not required to consider, while taking a decision on an application seeking registration, whether a lease deed exists or not, when the place of business of the petitioner-company has already been disclosed. It needs to be noted, in this regard, points out Dr. Saraf, that the petitioner has submitted registered lease deed in respect of the principal place of its business, i.e., its registered office. Dr. Saraf further pointed out th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the need of subsequent signature becomes irrelevant and futile. It is contended by Dr. Saraf that the petitioner, being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the requirement of introduction of the applicant by a registered dealer or by a responsible person cannot be held to be mandatory, when the petitioner has a certificate of incorporation. In fact, Dr. Saraf contends that there is no requirement of introducer in respect of an application for grant of registration under the CST Act, 1956, and, hence, on the said ground, the application for registration under the CST Act, 1956, could not have been rejected. The sales tax authorities, according to Dr. Saraf, have no business or jurisdiction in matters, which are not covered by the TVAT Act, 2004, or the CST Act, 1956. The certificate of incorporation along with form 18 and challan, dated March 12, 2010, having been submitted to respondent No. 3 by the petitioner, the same clearly go to show, points out Dr. Saraf, that the petitioner has changed its registered office within jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. Dr. Saraf further submits that the share capital of a company has nothing to do with registration and man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and for reasons other than bona fide. In order to ascertain the correctness of the petitioner's case and also the justification of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the counter-submissions made by the respondents, what is imperative is that this court determines what are the reasons or objects in making the provisions for making the "registration" of a "dealer" compulsory under the fiscal enactments aforementioned. In other words, the issue to be decided is as to why the provisions for "compulsory registration" are embodied in the TVAT Act, 2004, as well as the CST Act, 1956. The Preamble of the TVAT Act, 2004, states that the said Act has been enacted to provide for "levy and collection" of value added tax at different points of sale in the State of Tripura. Similarly, the Preamble of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, states that the Act has been enacted to formulate the principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or outside the State or in the course of import of goods into, or export of goods out of India, and to provide for the levy, collection ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ransactions so that levy and collection of tax can be effectively ensured. In Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 766, the Supreme Court observed, in paragraph 12, that "registration" is mainly conceived in the interest of revenue so as to facilitate collection of tax and to prevent evasion thereof. The relevant observations, appearing at paragraph 12, in Ghanshyamdas [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 766, read as under (pages 983 and 984 in 14 STC): "12. To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Under section 4 of the Act, every dealer whose turnover exceeds the specified limits prescribed under sub-section (5) thereof shall be liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act on all sales effected by him. Under section 8 no dealer shall, while being liable to pay tax under the Act, carry on business as a dealer unless he has been registered as such and possesses a registration certificate. Part IV of the Rules prescribes the manner in which a dealer shall get himself registered under the Act. Under section 8, if the dealer satisfi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity upon the "registered dealers", who may incur taxable liability. If, a "dealer" is not registered, it may be difficult for the State to know about, and/or keep track of, each of the assessable transactions, which the "dealer" may have entered into, and the value of the taxable goods, which the "dealer" sells. In short, thus, the necessity of "registration", as contemplated under the TVAT Act, 2004, and CST Act, 1956, is to trace out assessable transactions that may take place within the State so as to help the authorities concerned to assess, levy and collect tax in order to ensure that evasion of tax does not take place. In fact, as we proceed further, it would also become transparent that merely because a person is a "dealer", he is not required to be registered under the TVAT Act, 2004, or the CST Act, 1956, inasmuch as ^1 Here italicised. "registration" would become necessary only in respect of such a "dealer", who becomes liable to pay tax. Scope of enquiry as envisaged under section 19(3) of the TVAT Act, 2004, and rule 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. While considering the scope of the "enquiry", as visualized by secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of: (i) Individual, by the proprietor of the business. (ii) an association of persons, by an adult member of the association. (iii) a firm, by the managing partner or an adult member of the firm. (iv) a Hindu undivided or joint family, by the manager or karta or any adult member of the family. (v) a company, by the Managing Director or the Secretary or Manager or the Principal or Chief Executive Officer of the company in India. (vi) any Government Department, by the head of the office. (2) The person making an application for registration shall specify the capacity in which the application is made, signed and verified: Provided that for the purpose of making an application, a warehouse where no accounts of sales are kept shall not be deemed to be a place of business. 11. In the application form referred to in rule 10, a dealer shall state, inter alia- (i) the nature of the business in broad but sufficiently clear terms and mention whether he manufactures, processes, imports, wholesells, distributes or retails taxable goods or if he carries out more than one of these functions, he shall state precisely the combination of the functions carried ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Undivided family business), together with age, father's name and permanent home address of each such proprietor, partner or other persons; (xii) particulars of every business, if any, in Tripura or elsewhere in India outside Tripura in which the proprietor, the partners or other persons, as the case may be, as mentioned in clause (v), has or have any interest; (xiii) particulars of any registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies, Shillong or by any other registering authority in India in respect of such business; (xiv) taxable turnover of sales, taxable turnover of purchases of goods or contractual transfer price of goods involved in execution of works contract, for the preceding year, if any and for the current year up to a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of such application; (xv) particulars of the certificate issued by the municipality or other authority if any, in respect of business and the date of issue and last renewal thereof; (xvi) particulars of Income-tax Permanent Account Number (PAN) or the evidence that it has been applied for." While considering the question of "compulsory registration" of a "dealer" under the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6 or sub-section (1) of section 6A or clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8, he may, by an order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, impose as a condition for the issue of a certificate of registration a requirement that the dealer shall furnish in the prescribed manner and within such time as may be specified in the order such security as may be so specified, for all or any of the aforesaid purposes. (3) If the authority to whom an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is made is satisfied that the application is in conformity with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, and the condition, if any, imposed under sub-section (2A), has been complied with he shall register the applicant and grant to him a certificate of registration in the prescribed form which shall specify the class or classes of goods for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 8." As rules 3, 4 and 5 of the 1957 Rules deal with "certificate of registration" of a "dealer", these Rules are quoted below: "3. Certificate of registration.-(1) An application for registration under section 7 shall be made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rule 4 has not been paid, he shall reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before the application is rejected, the applicant shall be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter and, as the case may be, or correcting and completing the said particulars or complying with the requirements of sub-rule (3) of rule 4." A careful reading of sub-section (3) of section 19 of the TVAT Act, 2004, shows that the "enquiry", which may be conducted by the authorities concerned, is such as is required to satisfy the authorities concerned that the application for "registration" is in order. The limited purpose of the "enquiry", therefore, is to ascertain if an application for "registration" is or is not in order, meaning thereby that by such an "enquiry", the authority concerned has to ascertain as to whether the particulars, which are required to be furnished in an application for "registration", have or have not been furnished by the applicant. Coupled with the above, a perusal of section 19 of the TVAT Act, 2004, read with rules 10 and 11 of the 2005 Rules and section 7 of the CST Act, 1956, read with rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Central Sales Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot in order, meaning thereby that the "enquiry" should be made strictly for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the particulars, required under the relevant Acts and the Rules, have or have not been furnished by the "dealer", who seeks registration, and whether such information or particulars, furnished by the "dealer", are correct and true or not. The "enquiry", thus, must be confined to the ascertainment of the fact as to whether the information given, and/or particulars furnished, by a "dealer", seeking "registration", are correct or not. The relevant observations, made in Durga Prasad Khaitan [1957] 8 STC 105 (Cal), read as under (pages 113 and 114 in 8 STC): "Next comes the question of rule 6. It is argued that under rule 6, the enquiry that has to be made is ex parte and therefore it violates the rules of natural justice. Of course the rule says that the Commercial Tax Officer can make 'any enquiry that he may think necessary'. But that does not necessarily mean that the rules of natural justice are to be violated. The petitioner has to give certain information in his application. If the authorities are to act on such information then necessarily they must ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....registration" as a "dealer", is in order? It needs to be borne in mind, in this context, that while considering an application for "registration", the satisfaction, to be arrived at by the authorities concerned, has to have a nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the relevant enactment and this is possible, when the object, behind "compulsory registration", is kept in mind, the object being tracing out the taxable transactions so that the person, dealing with such taxable transactions, can be fastened with taxable liability, realization of tax from such a person (dealer) becomes possible and, consequently, evasion of tax is prevented. The satisfaction, to be reached by the authority concerned, has to be, therefore, based on such materials, which are required under the relevant Acts and the Rules framed thereunder, and only those materials can be regarded as relevant, which have nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by way of "registration" of "dealer". In other words, while conducting the "enquiry", the authority concerned cannot take into consideration such matters, which are irrelevant and/or not required to be furnished under the relevant statute. A material,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... take into account matters which the courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion." What emerges from the above discussion is that when an "enquiry", as contemplated by section 19(3) of the TVAT Act, 2004, and section 7(3) of the CST Act, 1956, takes into account, or bring within its fold, an aspect, which has no nexus with the object, which is sought to be achieved by way of "registration" of a "dealer", then, such an "enquiry", or bringing into fore such an aspect, which is irrelevant, would, in the eyes of law, amount to non-exercise of discretion by the authority concerned. Thus, the satis= faction to be reached by an authority for the purpose of "registration" of a ^1Here italicised. "dealer", under section 19(3) of the TVAT Act, 2004, as well as section 7(3) of the CST Act, 1956, is not, unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. In the case of Rungpur Enterprise v. State of Assam (W. P. (C) No. 7967 of 2007), this court, while dealing with a case pertaining to refusal of permission for sale of land, by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, on the ground that there e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with a case of "registration" of a partnership firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court observed, in Agarwal and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [1970] 77 ITR 10 (SC); [1970] 2 SCC 48, as under (page 18 in 77 ITR): ". . . The jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer was, therefore, confined to ascertaining two facts, namely, (1) whether the application for registration was in conformity with the rules framed under the Act and (2) whether the firm shown in the document presented for registration was a bogus one or had no legal existence. Further, the discretion conferred on the Income-tax Officer under section 26A was a judicial one and he could not refuse to register a firm on mere speculation. He had to base his conclusion on relevant evidence. . ." From the above cited observations, made in Agarwal and Co. [1970] 77 ITR 10 (SC); [1970] 2 SCC 48, it becomes clear that an authority, under a taxing statute, cannot refuse to register a firm on its (the authority's) speculations, or on grounds, which are not relevant, and the question, as to whether a ground is or is not relevant, has to be seen in the context of the objects of "regi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by way of "registration" of "dealers", the authorities concerned can keep track of the assessable transactions and can fasten liability upon the registered "dealers" in respect of their taxable transactions and, consequently, realise tax and prevent thereby evasion of tax. In the present case, it is the petitioner, who has applied for "registration" and it is in the interest of Revenue of the State that such "registration" be granted unless impermissible in law or unless the petitioner has not been able to furnish a particular, which is relevant under the Act and the Rules concerned. Considering the fact that the "registration" of a "dealer", in the present case, is governed by section 19 of the TVAT Act, 2004, read with rules 10 and 11 of the 2005 Rules, it logically follows that, in order to get registered under the said Act and/or the Rules, the petitioner was required to submit its applications in accordance with the relevant Rules, enclosing, therewith, such documents as are required under the said Act and the Rules. On the application being submitted, the authority concerned is to make an "enquiry", in this regard, and if, upon such "enquiry", the authority concerned is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt in an air pollution control area: Provided that a person operating any industrial plant in any air pollution control area immediately before the commencement of section 9 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987, for which no consent was necessary prior to such commencement, may continue to do so for a period of three months from such commencement or, if he has made an application for such consent within the said period of three months, till the disposal of such application." Sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, goes to show that the consent is required to be given by a State Pollution Board for establishment or operation of an industrial plant. This apart, it is the State Pollution Board, which is the appropriate authority to take necessary action, in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1981, if a person establishes or operates, in an air pollution control area, an industrial plant withou35t obtaining its previous consent. The sales tax authorities are not the appropriate authority to enforce the provisions of the Act of 1981 inasmuch as a person, appointed as an authority under the TVAT Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... things go, these may well be said to run into one another. 9. The influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence. It will therefore be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which makes a useful provision for the premature retirement of Government servants only in the 'public interest', to a purpose wholly unwarranted by it, and to arrive at quite a contradictory result. An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must therefore be held to be infected with an abuse of power." (emphasis^1is added) From the observations noted above, it becomes clear that when a public authority is prompted to take an action under a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstances, such a belief would be in bad faith and an administrative order, which is based on reasons of fact, which do not exist, must be held to be infected by abuse of power. In the present case too, when the petitioner made applications, seeking registration as a dealer for trading in coal, and when, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of business" of the petitioner would be the petitioner's office and not the place, where stockyard is located. This apart, respondent No. 3 could not have rejected the application seeking registration for the purpose of trading in coal inasmuch as the petitioner had submitted a registered lease deed of its stockyard enabling it to trade in coal. (III) Non-submission of the certificate of incorporation of change of address from Dhaleswar to Kunjaban As regards the rejection of the petitioner's applications seeking certificate of registration, under the TVAT Act, 2004, and the CST Act, 1956, on the ground of non-furnishing of the certificate of incorporation of change of address of the petitioner-company from Dhaleswar to Kunjaban, suffice it to point out that this ground too suffers from malice in law inasmuch as the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, appears to have not noted the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956, inasmuch as the Companies (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956, envisages issuance of a fresh certificate of incorporation upon change of the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f one Registrar of Companies to another. There are some States, it may be noted, in this regard, such as, the States of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, where there are more than one Registrar of Companies. As far as North Eastern Region is concerned, there is, admittedly, only one Registrar of Companies with its office at Shillong and, hence, in a case of present nature, section 17A of the Companies Act, 1956, has no application and the respondents, including respondent No. 3, could not have insisted on a new certificate of incorporation of the petitioner-company incorporating change of address. Turning to section 146, which relates to registered office of the company, it may be noted that section 146 reads as under: "146. Registered office of company.-(1) A company shall, as from the day on which it begins to carry on business, or as from the thirtieth day after the date of its incorporation, whichever is earlier, have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed. (2) Notice of the situation of the registered office, and of every change therein, shall be given within thirty days after the date of the incorporation of the company or after the date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 007, Tripura, India. The petitioner has disclosed on record that upon the change of its registered office, it had submitted to the Registrar of Companies, at Shillong, a duly filled up form 18. In fact, the petitioner has produced on record, in this regard, a receipt issued, on March 12, 2010, by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs indicating receipt of the application made in form 18 by the petitioner. Neither the Companies Act, 1956, nor the Rules framed thereunder, provide for issuance of a fresh certificate of incorporation or amendment of the certificate of incorporation upon change of the address of the registered office within the jurisdiction of the same Registrar of Companies. The only formality required is to inform the concerned Registrar of Companies, in prescribed form 18, the change in the address of the registered office and this had been done by the petitioner-company as far back as on March 12, 2010 itself. Situated thus, it becomes clear that the insistence of the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, that the petitioner-company shall produce a certificate mentioning therein the change in the address of the registered office of the company is a wholly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned to inform the petitioner-company about the withdrawal of the signature by the introducer so that the petitioner could remove the defect. Making withdrawal of the introducer as a ground for rejection of the certificate of registration, without giving any information to the petitioner, in this regard, is nothing but violation of the principles of natural justice. What can also not be ignored is that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and, in this regard, a certificate of incorporation has already been submitted by the petitioner to the appropriate authority. The scope and ambit of a certificate of incorporation can be gathered from section 35 of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads as under: "35. Conclusiveness of certificate of incorporation.-A certificate of incorporation given by the registrar in respect of any association shall be conclusive evidence that all the requirements of this Act have been complied with in respect of registration and matters precedent and incidental thereto, and that the association is a company authorised to be registered and duly registered under this Act." A careful reading of section 35 shows that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clearer from the fact that the petitioner had requested for permission to import coal to the State of Tripura and to pay necessary taxes as per the provisions of law, but respondent No. 3 did not even allow the petitioner to bring coal to the State of Tripura on the ground that the petitioner is not a registered dealer, though as already indicated above, the requirement of a dealer getting registered arises under section 19 only when the dealer has already incurred the liability to pay tax and, hence, unless a person has incurred the liability to pay tax under the relevant statute, he cannot be stopped from selling, without being registered, his goods and incurring thereby his first taxable liability. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation on account of such acts of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to carry on its business thereby causing the petitioner immense losses on account of wharfage and demurrage charges? I have already indicated above that a person becomes liable, as a dealer, to apply for registration under section 19(1) of the TVAT Act, 2004, and section 7(1) of the CST Act, 1956, only when he incurs taxable liability. In no uncertain wor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dealer has some particular place of business in the State and no sales tax law is in force in that State. In the present case, the respondents have clearly stated, in their affidavit-in-opposition, that no registration has been granted to any local dealer, in Tripura, meaning thereby that coal is not sold in the local market in Tripura. Hence, for incurring any liability to pay tax, in the State of Tripura, for sale of coal, coal has to be imported from outside and, then, sold within the State. In the present case, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax under the CST Act, 1956, as he has not made any sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce from the State of Tripura nor he can make any sale of coal in the State of Tripura and become thereby liable to pay tax under the local Sales Tax Act unless and until he is allowed to import coal into the State of Tripura. In case, the petitioner is not allowed to import coal from outside into the State of Tripura, he cannot sell any coal in the State of Tripura to become liable to pay tax under the TVAT Act, 2004, so that registration can be granted to him under the TVAT Act, 2004. Similarly, till the petitioner gets itself r....