9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them mainly outside the State of West Bengal. The petitioner started the said manufacturing business, it is alleged, from November, 1965. The accounting year of the petitioner is from 1st of April to 31st of March. On 8th July, 1966, the first sale was effected by the petitioner which was a sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On 19th July, 1966, the petitioner applied for registration to the Commercial Tax Officer, Bhawanipur Charge. On 16th September, 1966, the said application was, however, rejected by an order and the intimation rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 30th September, 1966. Three days before the receipt of rejection of the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and praying for expedition. But no order for registration was made before 12th March, 1968, and though it was due to the laches of the respondent that the application was kept pending for so long the assessment was sought to be made on the allegation that the petitioner has failed to get himself registered. The respondent has filed the affidavit stating that the first application was made on 8th August, but the same was rejected on merits on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to get registration. The next application dated 5th November, 1966, was filed on 10th November, 1966, but in the affidavit it is stated that the application was not properly filled in, inasmuch as, there was no signature of any attesting witness. From the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent was responsible. In that view, therefore, the petitioner's firm cannot be made liable for the delay of the respondent in the disposal of the application, and the notice under section 9 in respect of the period commencing from 10th November, 1966, to 30th September, 1967, is bad and it cannot be said that the petitioner has failed to get himself registered as the application was pending before the Commercial Tax Officer. The same cannot be said, however, in respect of the period between 8th July, 1966, and 9th November, 1966. In the circumstances, therefore, this rule succeeds in part. The notice under section 11(2) for the period between 10th November, 1966, and 30th September, 1967, must stand quashed but the notice for the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
