2021 (3) TMI 362 - HC - Central Excise

Seeking rectification of the error in the petitioner's registration certificate - Power to rectify the mistake - HELD THAT - It is true that the authorities have not been approached immediately. It is also true that this writ petition has not been filed immediately after it became clear that the representation was not being considered. When the power to rectify the mistake is available, as and when the error is pointed out, the rectification ought to be done. The registration certificate pertaining to Saga Steels Private Limited is containing an error. Of course, the petitioner is responsible for the error. But that is not a ground to deny relief sought for by them. Since M/s.Sabari TMT King Private Limited/the writ petitioner herein has taken over Saga Steels Private Limited, M/s.Sabari TMT King Private Limited is very much having locus standi to maintain the writ petition. Therefore, the second respondent, who is said to be the nodal officer is directed to rectify the petition mentioned error and issue a revised registration certificate for Saga Steels Private Limited. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of error in registration certificate.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought rectification of an error in the registration certificate of a company it acquired. The error was in the PAN mentioned in the certificate, and the petitioner had submitted a representation for correction. The respondents mentioned that the registration was issued based on an incorrect PAN provided by the applicant. The respondents also stated that the stocks in the petitioner's factory needed verification before rectification. The court noted that although the authorities were not approached immediately, the rules allowed for amendment of information in the registration certificate. The court emphasized that when an error is pointed out, rectification should be done. The court directed the nodal officer to rectify the error and issue a revised registration certificate within six weeks. The court held that the petitioner had the standing to maintain the writ petition despite being responsible for the error.

This judgment highlights the importance of rectifying errors in registration certificates promptly when identified, as per the rules governing such amendments. It underscores that the responsibility for an error in a registration certificate does not preclude the right to seek rectification. The court's decision to direct the rectification of the error and issuance of a revised certificate within a specified timeframe demonstrates the court's commitment to upholding the petitioner's rights in this case.