2021 (12) TMI 380 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Amendment of CST Registration Certificate - intra-departmental communications exchanged between the first and second respondents - only reason given in the impugned Email Communication dated 02.03.2021 of the second respondent is that the effective date cannot be amended - HELD THAT - It is also noticed that though the authorized representative of the petitioner has sent an Email requesting the amendment of CST Registration Certificate on 13.10.2020 at 4 59 24 PM, the second respondent has informed the rejection of the request to the petitioner vide impugned Email Communication dated 02.03.2021 only. That apart, it is also noticed that the petitioner has sent two letters dated 19.09.2020 and 07.12.2020 to the first respondent and the intra office communication has been exchanged between the first and second respondents on 07.12.2020. Though the arguments of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents are that the application for amending the CST Registration Certificate has been made belatedly on 19.09.2020, nevertheless, there is no embargo under the aforesaid Rules to amend the date in the CST Registration Certificate. It is noticed that under the aforesaid Rules, such application for amendment cannot be made if the records otherwise indicate that the petitioner had not indeed filed the application for registration on 07.06.2017 by declaring the effective date of commencement of business as 20.05.2017 - the records will be available with the respondents and therefore the respondents cannot reject the request of the petitioner merely stating that it is not possible to amend the Certificate at a later point of time. It was for the respondents to make suitable internal changes in their Web Portal to amend the Certificates of registration. Rule 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 also makes it clear that the application can be entertained for amending the CST Registration Certificate. There is no also limitation prescribed therein. Therefore, the respondents are directed to make suitable corrections in the CST Registration Certificate granted to the petitioner, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of effective date in CST Registration Certificate.
2. Rejection of request for amendment by respondents.
3. Timeliness of application for amendment.
4. Interpretation of Central Sales Tax Act and Rules.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition was filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to address several key issues. Firstly, the petitioner requested the records related to an Email Proceedings dated 02.03.2021, aiming to amend the effective date in the CST Registration Certificate. The petitioner argued that the effective date should be corrected to 20.05.2017, as opposed to the date mentioned in the certificate. The respondents had rejected this request, citing that the effective date could not be amended as per the Central Sales Tax Act and Rules.

The petitioner contended that they had initially applied for registration with the correct effective date but received the certificate with a different date. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, argued that the application for registration was received after the date mentioned in the certificate, hence the rejection of the amendment request.

Upon hearing both parties, the court examined the application filed by the petitioner and found that it clearly stated the correct commencement date of business. The court dismissed the argument that the application was received late, emphasizing that there was no time limitation for amending the CST Registration Certificate under the relevant Rules.

The court highlighted that Rule 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Rules allowed for amendments to the certificate without any prescribed time limit. Therefore, the respondents were directed to make the necessary corrections in the certificate within thirty days from the date of the court's order. The Writ Petition was allowed with observations, and no costs were imposed, leading to the closure of connected Miscellaneous Petitions.