TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted the application form with connected records to the second respondent for getting tax payer identification number for the business. The petitioner has filed the application form for new registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on April 2, 2012. The application for sales tax registration along with D.D. for Rs. 500 was received by the second respondent. Such application was made by the petitioner for doing business in stainless steel pipes ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The second respondent has referred the new registration application to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing, Chennai North. The place of business was verified by the enforcement wing officials and thereafter, the second respondent has rejecte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 500 for the principal place of business and in addition, a further fee of fifty rupees in respect of each of the places of business other than the principal place of business. In the present case, the petitioner complied with the procedure contemplaced under section 39 of the Act. Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules also deals with certificate of registration and contemplates that registering authority on receipt of the application in form A shall acknowledge the receipt and on satisfaction that the application is in order, the authority shall assign tax payer identification number and issue certificate for registration within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. If the authority found any defect in the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the reading of the above paragraph, it is clear that the respondent has stated that place of business was inspected by the enforcement wing, it was found that place of business consisted of 80 sq.ft., and that it is not possible to do business in SS pipe and the respondent also returned the registration application. The petitioner also filed a letter dated May 16, 2012 to the second respondent stating that they are not keeping any materials in the shop but to be supplied to the customer against the purchase order. It is further stated that the additional place of business is not readily available now. However, the second respondent without considering the scope of relevant provision relating to form A, rejected the registration stating t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of land for carrying on the business. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to genuinity of the business that is going to be carried on at the place of business. Further, it is not for the Revenue to suggest the extent of land that is necessary to carry on the business. It is for the businessman to decide the same. The Revenue should not obstruct the assessee from carrying on the business at every stage with the tax collectors point of view, but would deal with the matter at the point of view of assessee. In such circumstances, the reason given by the respondent is not in accordance with law and against the provisions of the Act and Rules. Accordingly, the impugned order dated June 4, 2012 of the second respondent is ....