9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sustainable or not? In order to appreciate the issue involved, it is necessary to state the factual background of the case that eventually brought the issue in writ to this Court. 2.. Petitioner is a limited company formed by the members of one Rajani family. Earlier these very members were carrying on business of solvent extraction by and under the name "Rajani Extractions". The partners of the firm then formed company (i.e., petitioner) and made this company as one of the partner of the said firm by amending the partnership deed. Later on, after some time, the partnership-firm was dissolved and the entire assets and liabilities including the running business of the dissolved firm was taken over by the petitioner-company. 3.. By anne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porary registration is legal or proper. 4.. The respondents (sales tax authorities) have supported the impugned orders both on facts as also on law. 5.. Heard Shri M.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Prakash Verma, learned Government Advocate, for respondents. 6.. Assailing the legality of the impugned action and the resultant orders passed by the authorities, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submitted that authorities have erred in rejecting the application. Taking through the factual history as to how the petitioners came into existence, i.e., from firm to limited company and then setting up of new units, learned counsel urged that the authorities are bound to grant temporary registration once it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mainly the submissions which were then elaborated to support the impugned action. 8.. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in this writ. The facts which are now based on factual inquiry conducted by the sales tax authorities and found proved being matter of impugned orders, would clearly indicate that in fact no new unit No. 2 as such was set up. 9.. The grant of registration certificate to any dealer is governed by section 16 and section 16-B of the M.P.G.S.T. Act, 1958. Section 16 deals with grant of voluntary registration whereas, section 16-B deals with grant of provisional registration. In either case, the holding of an inquiry and the satisfaction of an authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded that petitioner was not entitled to claim a registration for their alleged new unit which was nothing but a camouflage in the garb of a new unit. This finding could be reached and had to be reached by the Sales Tax Authorities for refusal to grant registration. This finding is not only relevant but binds this Court in its writ jurisdiction-it being a finding based on facts. 11.. Once the aforesaid factual finding is reached and upheld all other submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which are mostly based on abstract question of law looses its significance. Even otherwise, the submissions made did not have any substance. 12.. As a consequence of aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in this writ which dese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
