2013 (3) TMI 336 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Provisional registration certificate cancelled - assessee seeking condonation of delay for filling revision against cancellation after six years six months and ten days - Held that - The revisional authority noted that after issuance of the provisional registration certificate, which was valid up to 18.02.2004 in spite of repeated opportunities being given, the petitioner did not appear for verification of the documents, and as such, the provisional registration certificate was cancelled on 16.02.2004. The said order having been challenged after long lapse of time without there being any proper reason for condonation of delay, the revisional authority rightly declined to interfere in it. When the provisional certificate was itself valid up to 18.02.2004, it was for the petitioner to have enquired about the progress in the matter of grant of permanent certificate and it cannot be as sumed that the petitioner was not having knowledge that his provisional registration certificate has been cancelled which itself was about to lapse after two days. No indulgence of this Court in the order passed by the revisional authority, in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India required .

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order cancelling provisional registration certificate, Delay in challenging the order, Condonation of delay

In the judgment, the petitioner challenged the order cancelling their provisional registration certificate under the MP Commercial Tax Act, 1994. The petitioner failed to produce the required documents for verification, leading to the cancellation of the certificate. The revisional authority upheld the cancellation, noting the petitioner's lack of response despite repeated opportunities for verification. The petitioner sought condonation of the delay in challenging the order, citing lack of information until later years. However, the court found no valid reason for the delay, emphasizing that the petitioner should have been aware of the cancellation since the provisional certificate was valid only until a specific date, which had passed without any action from the petitioner. The court concluded that the petitioner, by not taking any steps or challenging the order for over six years, was not entitled to relief under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.