TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act. 2. There was a partnership firm, viz. M/s. Mico Lock Service, carrying on the business of locks, consisting of partners, viz. Smt. Husan Ara Begum and Akhlaq Ahmad since 1977 and this firm was duly registered both under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, as also under the Central Sales Tax Act. Thereafter, on 1st April, 1981, a new firm came into existence, when initially there was a dispute whether it was a reconstituted firm after the aforesaid date or it was a new firm. We have deliberately not gone into this controversy and are deciding this petition on another point in which it is not necessary to go into the specific point to which the learned counsel for the parties agree. After 1st April, 1981, one more partner Smt. Kaneez Fatima, mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., bat it was made effective only from 24th August, 1981. The reason for granting registration retrospectively under the U. P. Sales Tax Act was that the petitioner deposited apart from renewal fee the late fee as required under the Rules and the authority condoned the delay in making the application for the grant of registration on account of payment of late fee. However, since in the case under the Central Sales Tax Act the petitioner along with an application on 24th August, 1981, did not deposit the requisite fee along with late fee, hence the claim of granting retrospective registration was refused under the Central Sales Tax. It is not in dispute that subsequently the requisite deposit for the late fee under the Central Sales Tax Act w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act then proceeding to impose penalty under the U. P. Sales Tax Act would be justified or not. According to the petitioner application for renewal would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. We are deliberately not dealing with this question raised by the either party to which the learned counsel for the parties agree. 4. The short question which we are called upon to answer in the present writ petition is whether initiation of proceedings for penalty by the respondent authority by issuance of notice dated 5th May, 1984, as against the petitioner firm for continuing business under the Central Sales Tax Act without getting registration of the firm between the period 1st April, 1981 and 23rd August, 1981 is justif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es is of deposit of the late fee in the case of U. P. Sales Tax Act which was made on 24th August, 1961, while under the Central Sales Tax Act on 3rd January, 1983. This omission stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner felt there is no provision under the Central Sales Tax Act for payment of late fee, he deposited only one fee under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. However, on coming to know that it was necessary for him to deposit even under the Central Sales Tax Act he made the said deposit on 3rd January, 1983. So far as deposit of this late fee is concerned it is relevant to quote Section 8-A (1-A) (c) of the Act as under : "A person failing to apply for registration in accordance with sub-section (1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts own conclusion whether it is a fit case to allow the application for granting registration retrospectively or not. In this case, the only reason for declining to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner was on account of failure of the petitioner to deposit the requisite fees along with the application made on 24th August, 1981. It is also not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the U. P. Sales Tax Officer granted registration retrospectively from 1st April, 1981, under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and accepted the explanation given by the petitioner but the same authority rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of non-deposit of late fee. We feel in view of this the respondent authority was not justified to rejec....