9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (1) TMI 798 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRestoration of the registration certificates refused - Held that - When the Department found that the petitioner is not carrying on any business for preceding consecutive three years and also in the very year of cancellation of registration certificates, it thought it proper to cancel its registration certificate, which is necessary for smooth tax administration. The person, who is not carrying on business, is totally unproductive for the Department and therefore there is no need for the Department to maintain records of such a person. The purpose and object is to weed out the dead wood from the list of registered dealers. Moreover, as the petitioner was not carrying on any business for a substantial period, it is not understood why it is interested to hold registration certificates for that period which would be nothing but like decorative pieces in the hands of the dealer-petitioner. W.P. dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of registration certificates under the OST Act and CST Act. 2. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 3. Authority/jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer (STO) to cancel registration certificates. 4. Validity of retrospective cancellation of registration certificates. 5. Petitioner's failure to apply for fresh registration certificates. Detailed Analysis: 1. Cancellation of Registration Certificates under the OST Act and CST Act: The petitioner, a small-scale industrial unit, had its registration certificates canceled by the STO under section 9(6)(b) of the OST Act and section 7(4)(b) of the CST Act due to filing "nil" returns for three consecutive years (1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99). The cancellation was upheld by the revisional authority, which found no merit in the petitioner's request for restoration of the certificates. 2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued that the cancellation was done without serving a show-cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice. However, the court found that notices were indeed served on the petitioner, who failed to respond. The court held that the STO acted within its rights as per section 22 of the General Clauses Act and the relevant OST Rules. 3. Authority/Jurisdiction of the STO to Cancel Registration Certificates: The petitioner contended that the STO lacked the authority to cancel the certificates. The court rejected this argument, stating that Rules 6, 6A, and 7 of the OST Rules authorize the STO to act as the prescribed authority. The court also noted that this issue was not raised before the revisional authority or in the writ petitions, making it inadmissible at this stage. 4. Validity of Retrospective Cancellation of Registration Certificates: The petitioner challenged the retrospective cancellation of the certificates from April 1, 1999. The court found that the petitioner had no business activities during the relevant period, making the retrospective cancellation justified. The court also noted that the petitioner did not demonstrate any prejudice caused by the retrospective cancellation. 5. Petitioner's Failure to Apply for Fresh Registration Certificates: The court observed that the petitioner could have applied for fresh registration certificates under section 4 of the OST Act or voluntarily under section 9A of the OST Act. The court found it suspicious that the petitioner did not pursue this course of action, which would have been a more straightforward solution than challenging the cancellations through litigation. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court emphasized that the purpose of canceling the registration certificates was to maintain efficient tax administration and weed out inactive dealers. The court also highlighted that the petitioner could have easily obtained fresh registration certificates if it resumed business activities. The revisional authority's decision to uphold the STO's cancellation of the registration certificates was deemed justified and lawful.
|
