9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 870X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for "registration" under the said Acts, and, if so, whether the refusal to register the petitioner as a "dealer", under the relevant fiscal statutes, suffers from malice in law, if not malice in fact? Whether the petitioner is, in the facts and attending circumstances, entitled to compensation on account of the conduct of the respondents in not allowing "registration" to the petitioner as "dealer", under the relevant fiscal statutes, so as to enable the petitioner to carry on its business? Held that:- In the present case, the petitioner is not liable to pay tax under the CST Act, 1956, as he has not made any sale in the course of inter-State trade and commerce from the State of Tripura nor he can make any sale of coal in the State of Tripura and become thereby liable to pay tax under the local Sales Tax Act unless and until he is allowed to import coal into the State of Tripura. As the action of the respondents/authorities concerned in refusing registration of the petitioner as a registered dealer is wholly untenable in law and discloses malice in law, the petitioner has considerable force, when it claims compensation for the losses, which it has suffered. Thus, though the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is, in the facts and attending circumstances, entitled to compensation on account of the conduct of the respondents in not allowing "registration" to the petitioner as "dealer", under the relevant fiscal statutes, so as to enable the petitioner to carry on its business? Before one attempts to answer the questions posed above, imperative it is to take into consideration the circumstances, whereunder the present writ petition has come to be filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The material facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, may, therefore, be first noted. Background facts (i) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for carrying out, in the State of Tripura, the business in trading of coal and with the aim to set up, in future, the business of stone boulder crushing. The petitioner accordingly submitted, on February 9, 2010, applications to the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge VIII, Agartala, seeking "registration" as "dealer" under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as, "the TVAT Act, 2004"), and the Central Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y an order, dated March 25, 2010, issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, Vigilance Cell, raising a demand of Rs. 3,71,535, which included the taxable liability as well as penalty to the extent of 150 per cent of the taxable liability. The demand, so raised, was satisfied by the petitioner by making payment of the said sum of Rs. 3,71,535 subject to the condition that the payment was being made under protest inasmuch as the petitioner was in dire need of the "certificate of registration" as huge quantity of coal had been purchased by the petitioner and had to be unloaded at the railway stockyard and that the petitioner had been paying wharfage and demurrage charges to the railways. (iv) As the "registration" certificates were not granted to the petitionercompany despite the fact that sufficient time had elapsed, the petitioner made representations to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, and Superintendent of Taxes, Charge I, Government of Tripura, Finance (Excise and Taxation), requesting them to let the petitioner know the status of its applications and also to grant requisite "registration" certificates early ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving any business with the Coal India Ltd. The petitioner also submitted a copy of the agreement entered into for import of coal from outside the State of Tripura. The petitioner further stated that the guidelines and modalities had been duly stated in the petitioner-company's profile. (vi) In continuation to the communication, dated July 9, 2010, the petitioner, by another communication, informed the respondents that, in the State of Meghalaya, coal is sold in open market and, therefore, one need not enter into any agreement for the purpose of procuring coal and/or for each transaction of coal. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide communication, dated July 22, 2010, informed the respondents that a huge stock of coal, imported by the petitioner, had been lying at Bihara Railway Sidings, Assam, and the petitioner was incurring huge expenses on wharfage and demurrage to the railways, and requested the respondents to allow the petitioner to take the stock of coal from Bihara, Assam, to Jirania, Agartala, undertaking to pay the required VAT in this regard. It was mentioned by the petitioner, in its said communication, that the petitioner's application for "registration" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication. (viii) On receiving the respondent's communication rejecting the petitioner's applications for "registration", the petitioner submitted representations to respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to rectify the defects shown in the rejection order, dated August 31, 2010, aforementioned and, challenging the rejection order aforementioned, the petitioner also approached respondent No. 2, namely, Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura. By order, dated November 23, 2010, respondent No. 2 allowed the petitioner the remove the defects in its applications for "registration" by submitting fresh applications, both under the TVAT Act, 2004, and CST Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 also directed respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioner's revised applications as per the provisions of the relevant Acts and Rules on removal of the defects. (ix) The petitioner, thereafter, submitted fresh applications to respondent No. 3 for "registration" by curing the defects mentioned in the order, dated August 31, 2010, aforementioned. However, respondent No. 3, once again, issued another communication, on December 15, 2010, informing the petitioner t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, certificate, in respect of factory and boiler, could not be furnished. As regards the certificate of incorporation, the petitioner informed respondent No. 3 that in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, certificate of incorporation of a company is not issued afresh unless the name of the company is changed and, in the case of the petitionercompany, since only the registered office had been changed, the petitionercompany had already submitted requisite form (form 18) along with requisite challan, dated March 12, 2010, in terms of the requirements of the Companies Act, 1956, for recording change of address of the petitionercompany. The petitioner-company submitted a copy of form 18 along with a copy of the challan, dated March 12, 2010, aforementioned for necessary consideration by the respondent authority. The petitioner further informed the respondent-authority that the petitioner-company was not in the business of export and/or import of any goods from outside India, but in trade and business within India and, hence, the export/import licence or IEC certificate, as sought for by the respondent-authority, was irrelevant. (xi) With regard to the respondent-authority' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompensation for the loss, which the petitioner claims to have sustained due to the respondents' refusal to grant "registration" certificate to the petitioner. Submissions Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel, made multifold submissions assailing the actions of the respondents in not granting "registration certificates" to the petitioner and in, eventually,rejecting the said applications by their order, dated February 4, 2011. It has been pointed out by Dr. Saraf that the basic object behind "registration" of a "dealer", under the sales tax statutes, is to keep track of the taxable transactions, which may take place within a State, and to ensure effective levy and collection of tax on such transactions. Dr. Saraf relies, in this regard, on the decision in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 766, wherein the Supreme Court held that "registration" is mainly aimed at securing the interest of Revenue by facilitating collection of tax and prevention of evasion thereof. According to Dr. Saraf, one of the essential objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting of "registration" and, hence, calling of further information by respondent No. 3 is wholly impermissible in law. In fact, submits Dr. Saraf, the refusal to register the petitioner, as a "dealer" under the relevant statutes, is for reasons other than bona fide and, hence, such a decision may not be sustained. Dr. Saraf reiterates that the "satisfaction", which is required to be arrived at by the authorities concerned, in the matter of granting of "registration", has to have nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the Act by means of compulsory "registration" of a "dealer". The learned Senior counsel further submits that the sales tax authorities cannot take into consideration, in refusing "registration" of a "dealer", such materials, which are irrelevant and have no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. Support for his submission is sought to be derived by Dr. Saraf from the decision of the Calcutta High Court, in Durga Prasad Khaitan v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1957] 8 STC 105 (Cal), and also the decision of the Supreme Court, in Indian Nut Products v. Union of India rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the absolute right to reject the application. In the case at hand too, according to Mr. Pal, the petitioner had failed to submit all the documents, which had been asked for, and, hence, rejection of the petitioner's application was wholly tenable in law. Yet another interesting submission, made by Mr. Pal, is that coal is not required, in usual course of business, in the State of Tripura, and no certificate of registration, in respect of trading in coal, has been issued, in the past, in the State of Tripura, to other private businessman for trading in coal in the market of Tripura, and, hence, the petitioner cannot insist that the petitioner be registered as a "dealer" in the trading of coal. This apart, according to Mr. Pal, there is a requirement of submission of pollution certificate in every case of using coal and the petitioner has failed to furnish the requisite pollution certificate. On this aspect of his submission, Mr. Pal heavily relies on para 6.6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, which is repro duced below: "6.6. That the respondents clearly state 'COAL' is not required in usual course of business in Tripura. There is no domestic use of ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Pollution Board to an industrial unit to establish and operate an industrial plant in an air pollution control area. Dr. Saraf submits that the petitioner has applied for registration for trading in coal; hence, rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of non-production of pollution certificate is totally on irrelevant consideration and the decision, reflected by the impugned order, dated February 4, 2011, which is based on such irrelevant consideration, is liable to be set aside and quashed. As regards non-submission of registered lease deed for stockyard of the company for stone boulders, it is submitted by Dr. Saraf that registration of a lease deed in respect of stock yard is, again, an irrelevant consideration inasmuch as the sales tax authority is not required to consider, while taking a decision on an application seeking registration, whether a lease deed exists or not, when the place of business of the petitioner-company has already been disclosed. It needs to be noted, in this regard, points out Dr. Saraf, that the petitioner has submitted registered lease deed in respect of the principal place of its business, i.e., its registered office. Dr. Saraf f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent-authority, the need of subsequent signature becomes irrelevant and futile. It is contended by Dr. Saraf that the petitioner, being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the requirement of introduction of the applicant by a registered dealer or by a responsible person cannot be held to be mandatory, when the petitioner has a certificate of incorporation. In fact, Dr. Saraf contends that there is no requirement of introducer in respect of an application for grant of registration under the CST Act, 1956, and, hence, on the said ground, the application for registration under the CST Act, 1956, could not have been rejected. The sales tax authorities, according to Dr. Saraf, have no business or jurisdiction in matters, which are not covered by the TVAT Act, 2004, or the CST Act, 1956. The certificate of incorporation along with form 18 and challan, dated March 12, 2010, having been submitted to respondent No. 3 by the petitioner, the same clearly go to show, points out Dr. Saraf, that the petitioner has changed its registered office within jurisdiction of respondent No. 3. Dr. Saraf further submits that the share capital of a company has nothing to do with regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 2004, as well as the CST Act, 1956, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and for reasons other than bona fide. In order to ascertain the correctness of the petitioner's case and also the justification of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the counter-submissions made by the respondents, what is imperative is that this court determines what are the reasons or objects in making the provisions for making the "registration" of a "dealer" compulsory under the fiscal enactments aforementioned. In other words, the issue to be decided is as to why the provisions for "compulsory registration" are embodied in the TVAT Act, 2004, as well as the CST Act, 1956. The Preamble of the TVAT Act, 2004, states that the said Act has been enacted to provide for "levy and collection" of value added tax at different points of sale in the State of Tripura. Similarly, the Preamble of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, states that the Act has been enacted to formulate the principles for determining when a sale or purchase of goods takes place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or outside the State or in the course of import of goods into, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to keep track of the assessable transactions and also of the persons, who indulge in such assessable transactions so that levy and collection of tax can be effectively ensured. In Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 766, the Supreme Court observed, in paragraph 12, that "registration" is mainly conceived in the interest of revenue so as to facilitate collection of tax and to prevent evasion thereof. The relevant observations, appearing at paragraph 12, in Ghanshyamdas [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC); AIR 1964 SC 766, read as under (pages 983 and 984 in 14 STC): "12. To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Under section 4 of the Act, every dealer whose turnover exceeds the specified limits prescribed under sub-section (5) thereof shall be liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act on all sales effected by him. Under section 8 no dealer shall, while being liable to pay tax under the Act, carry on business as a dealer unless he has been registered as such and possesses a registration certificate. Part IV of the Rules prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable sales traceable, but also the "dealers", who are involved in such taxable transactions. Because of "registration" of a "dealer", the State remains in a position to identify and impose taxable liability upon the "registered dealers", who may incur taxable liability. If, a "dealer" is not registered, it may be difficult for the State to know about, and/or keep track of, each of the assessable transactions, which the "dealer" may have entered into, and the value of the taxable goods, which the "dealer" sells. In short, thus, the necessity of "registration", as contemplated under the TVAT Act, 2004, and CST Act, 1956, is to trace out assessable transactions that may take place within the State so as to help the authorities concerned to assess, levy and collect tax in order to ensure that evasion of tax does not take place. In fact, as we proceed further, it would also become transparent that merely because a person is a "dealer", he is not required to be registered under the TVAT Act, 2004, or the CST Act, 1956, inasmuch as 1 Here italicised. "registration" would become neces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be submitted to the concerned Super intendent of Taxes. Rules 10 and 11 aforementioned, being, therefore, relevant, are quoted below: "10. Registration of dealer: An application for registration under section 19 shall be in form I and it shall be addressed to the Superintendent of Taxes. (1) An application for registration shall be signed and verified in the case of: (i) Individual, by the proprietor of the business. (ii) an association of persons, by an adult member of the association. (iii) a firm, by the managing partner or an adult member of the firm. (iv) a Hindu undivided or joint family, by the manager or karta or any adult member of the family. (v) a company, by the Managing Director or the Secretary or Manager or the Principal or Chief Executive Officer of the company in India. (vi) any Government Department, by the head of the office. (2) The person making an application for registration shall specify the capacity in which the application is made, signed and verified: Provided that for the purpose of making an application, a warehouse where no accounts of sales are kept shall not be deemed to be a place of business. 11. In the application form refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; (xi) whether the applicant is not a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, or under any other law, the name and addresses of the proprietor of the business or the names and addresses of the partners of the firm or the names and addresses of the persons having any interest in the business (as in the case of a Hindu Undivided family business), together with age, father's name and permanent home address of each such proprietor, partner or other persons; (xii) particulars of every business, if any, in Tripura or elsewhere in India outside Tripura in which the proprietor, the partners or other persons, as the case may be, as mentioned in clause (v), has or have any interest; (xiii) particulars of any registration certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies, Shillong or by any other registering authority in India in respect of such business; (xiv) taxable turnover of sales, taxable turnover of purchases of goods or contractual transfer price of goods involved in execution of works contract, for the preceding year, if any and for the current year up to a date not earlier than thirty days from the date of such application; (xv) particulars of the certificate is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him is exempt from tax or a refund or rebate of tax is admissible in respect thereof. (2A) Where it appears necessary to the authority to whom an application is made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) so to do for the proper realisation of the tax payable under this Act or for the proper custody and use of the forms referred to in clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 6 or sub-section (1) of section 6A or clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8, he may, by an order in writing and for reasons to be recorded therein, impose as a condition for the issue of a certificate of registration a requirement that the dealer shall furnish in the prescribed manner and within such time as may be specified in the order such security as may be so specified, for all or any of the aforesaid purposes. (3) If the authority to whom an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is made is satisfied that the application is in conformity with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder, and the condition, if any, imposed under sub-section (2A), has been complied with he shall register the applicant and grant to him a certificate of registration in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t him a certificate of registration in form B and also a copy of such certificate for every place of business within the State other than the principal place of business mentioned therein. (2) When the said authority is not satisfied that the particulars contained in the application are correct and complete, or where the fee referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 4 has not been paid, he shall reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before the application is rejected, the applicant shall be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter and, as the case may be, or correcting and completing the said particulars or complying with the requirements of sub-rule (3) of rule 4." A careful reading of sub-section (3) of section 19 of the TVAT Act, 2004, shows that the "enquiry", which may be conducted by the authorities concerned, is such as is required to satisfy the authorities concerned that the application for "registration" is in order. The limited purpose of the "enquiry", therefore, is to ascertain if an application for "registration" is or is not in order, meaning thereby that by such an "enquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the authorities find from an "enquiry" that any information, given in the application for "registration" of "dealer", is not correct, then, the authorities concerned would be bound to inform the "dealer" concerned, (i.e., the applicant) about the incorrect/insufficient information so that the "dealer" gets an opportunity to explain the same. The "enquiry" cannot, however, be, as indicated hereinbefore, in the nature of a judicial "enquiry". The "enquiry" has to be, therefore, limited to the purpose for which the "enquiry" is held, namely, ascertainment of the fact as to whether an application is or is not in order, meaning thereby that the "enquiry" should be made strictly for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the particulars, required under the relevant Acts and the Rules, have or have not been furnished by the "dealer", who seeks registration, and whether such information or particulars, furnished by the "dealer", are correct and true or not. The "enquiry", thus, must be confined to the ascertainment of the fact as to whether the information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, it is not necessary to do so. The case fails on the merits." In the light of the language used in section 19(3) of the TVAT Act, 2004, and section 7(3) of the CST Act, 1956, there can be no doubt that the purpose of the "enquiry", as contemplated under the said Acts, is to help the authorities concerned in ascertaining the correctness of the information/particulars furnished in an application for "registration" of "dealer". While considering section 19(3) of the TVAT Act, 2004, and section 7(3) of the CST Act, 1956, the question, which immediately arises, is this: what is the extent of the "satisfaction", which, with the help of the "enquiry", an authority is required to reach, for the purpose of determination, whether or not the application, seeking "registration" as a "dealer", is in order? It needs to be borne in mind, in this context, that while considering an application for "registration", the satisfaction, to be arrived at by the authorities concerned, has to have a nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the relevant enactment and this is possible, when the object, behind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on the existence of grounds mentioned in the statute. The grounds must be made out on the basis of the relevant material. If the existence of the conditions required for the exercise of the power is challenged, the courts are entitled to examine whether those conditions existed when the order was made. A person aggrieved by such action can question the satisfaction by showing that it was wholly based on irrelevant grounds and hence amounted to no satisfaction at all. In other words, the existence of the circumstances in question is open to judicial review." (emphasis1added) Similarly, in Smt. S. R. Venkataraman v. Union of India reported in [1979] 2 SCC 491, the Supreme Court, approvingly took note of the observations, made by Lord Esher (MR), in the case of the Queen on the Prosecution of Richard Westbrook v. Vestry of St. Pancras reported in [1890] 24 QBD 371, which read thus: "If people who have to exercise a public duty by exercising their discretion take into account matters which the courts consider not to be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then in the eye of the law they have not exercised their discretion." What emerges from the above discu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is also necessary to point out that according to the undenied facts of record, the coke industries, which are sought to be set up, fall within industrial area, as classified by the GMDA under the GMDA Act, 1985. In such circumstances, the GMDA could not have denied permission as had been sought for by M/s. Ganesh Met Coke Industries and M/s. Shri Balaji Coke Industries, when no violation of the master plan or the zonal regulations was alleged. (viii) What emerges from the above discussion is that the very basis for rejecting the permission for sale of the land and also the permission for construction become irrelevant following the failure, on the part of the State Government, to sustain the communication, dated May 16, 2005, aforementioned." The above observations of this court, in Rungpur Enterprise (W. P. (C) No. 7967 of 2007), clearly show that when a statutory authority denies permission, or refuses to exercise its power, on a ground, which is irrelevant, such a refusal cannot bear the scrutiny of law. While dealing with a case of "registration" of a partnership firm under section 26A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Supreme Court observed, in Agarwal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for "registration", the authority concerned takes into account any material, which is irrelevant for the purpose of reaching his "satisfaction", such action of the authority concerned would be treated as if the authority concerned has not exercised its discretion as warranted by law. In the backdrop of the position of law, as indicated above, if the facts of the present case are carefully examined, it would surface that the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, has omitted to grant "registration" to the petitioner, both under the TVAT Act, 2004, as well as the CST Act, 1956, on wholly untenable grounds inasmuch as the grounds, which stand assigned for rejection of the petitioner's application for "registration", have, as would be seen, no nexus with the objects of "registration", sought to be achieved by the said enactments. At the cost of repetition, one can, once again, refer to the case of Ghanshyamdas [1963] 14 STC 976 (SC); AIR 1964 DC 766 and Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. [2008] 13 VST 538 (SC); [2008] 14 SCC 704, wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that "registration" of a " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change of address of the petitioner-company from Dhaleswar to Kunjaban. (IV) Subsequent withdrawal vide communication, dated December 31, 2010, of his signature by the introducer of the applicant in prescribed form 1. (I) Non-submission of the pollution certificate The first ground on which the application for registration has been rejected is non-submission of a pollution certificate. Before entering into the question as to whether a pollution certificate is or is not a relevant material for the grant of registration in the case of the petitioner, it would be apposite to know what a pollution certificate is and when can a pollution certificate be issued. A pollution certificate is a consent, which is given, under section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, by the State Pollution Board to an industrial plant to establish or operate an industrial plant in an air pollution control area. Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, being relevant for determining as to why a pollution certificate is granted, a part of section 21, which is relevant in the present context, is quoted below: "21. Restrictions on use of certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ragraph 6.6 of the afidavit-in-opposition, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned Senior Government Advocate, to show that no certificate of registration has been granted, under the said fiscal assessment, to any private businessman permitting trading in coal in the local market of Tripura. It is necessary to point out, in this regard, that the respondents have failed to note that obtaining of pollution certificate is not at all required for the purpose of trading in coal even in the State of Tripura inasmuch as a pollution certificate can be issued and is required to be issued if one has to establish and operate an industrial plant in an air pollution control area. Thus, the refusal to grant registration certificate, on the ground of nonproduction of pollution certificate, is on a non-existent material or factor. The following observations, made by the Supreme Court, in Smt. S. R. Venkataraman [1979] 2 SCC 491, are eminently suitable to remember in the present context: "8. We are in agreement with this view. It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipal place of business, i.e., registered office. 1Here italicised. We may pause, at this stage, to take note of the provisions embodied in section 2(18) of the TVAT Act, 2004, which defines a place of business. Section 2(18) is, therefore, reproduced below: "2. (18). 'Place of business' means any place where a dealer carries on the business and includes; (a) any warehouse, godown or other place where a dealer stores or processes his goods; (b) any place where a dealer produces or manufactures goods; (c) any place where a dealer keeps his books of accounts; (d) in cases where a dealer carries on business through an agent (by whatever name called), the place of business of such agent; (e) any vehicle or vessel or any other carrier wherein the goods are stored or used for transporting the goods." A bare reading of section 2(18) clearly shows that a place of business is nothing, but a place, where a dealer carries on his business. In terms of section 146 of the Companies Act, 1956, a company shall carry on its business, at its Registered Office, to which all communications and notices may be addressed. Thus, the ground that the petitioner has not produced a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal Director for change of its registered office under this section, within two months from the date of confirmation, together with a printed copy of the memorandum as altered and the Registrar shall register the same and certify the registration under his hand within one month from the date of filing of such document. (5) The certificate shall be conclusive evidence that all the requirements of this Act with respect to the alteration and confirmation have been complied with and henceforth the memorandum as altered shall be the memorandum of the company." A careful reading of the provisions, contained in section 17A, shows that when the registered office of a particular company is changed within a State, the change has to be confirmed by the Regional Director in terms of sub-section (1) of section 17A and, in this regard, an application is required to be made in the prescribed form to the Regional Director. It may be further noted that the prescribed form is form 1AD in terms of rule 4BBA of the Company (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956. Section 17A has no application to a case, where change of registered office is within the jurisdiction of the same R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the default continues." A cautious reading of section 146, as a whole, and, particularly, subsection (2) of section 146, shows that the notice of every change in the registered office of a company shall be given, within 30 days after the date of incorporation of the company or after the date of the change, as the case may be, to the Registrar, who shall record the same. The proviso to subsection (2) of section 146 stipulates that a registered office of the company shall not be removed except with the authority of a special resolution passed by the company as stated in clauses (a) and (b) of the said proviso. Thus, the notice of the change of the situation of the registered office of a company is required to be given to the Registrar of Companies in form No. 18 as prescribed by the Companies (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956. In the present case, the certificate of incorporation of the petitionercompany was issued on December 24, 2009. This certificate of incorporation merely mentions the mailing address as per records available in the Registrar of Companies Office and, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o violation of the principles of natural justice. Coupled with the above, it is also interesting to note that a perusal of form A of the Rules of 1957, which relates to the grant of registration, under the CST Act, 1956, does not show requirement of any introducer for obtaining registration as a dealer and, hence, application, seeking registration under the CST Act, 1956, could not have been rejected on the ground that its introducer had withdrawn. As far as the TVAT Rules, 2005, is concerned, form 1 thereof shows that this form requires signature of a registered "dealer" or a responsible person as an introducer. This requirement was complied with by the petitioner-company, on November 27, 2010, at the time of submission of the application seeking registration. The purpose behind the need of introduction by a registered dealer or by any responsible person is only for the purpose of submission of application form, which was done as far back as on November 27, 2010. The said application having been acted upon by the concerned authorities, the need of the introducer's signature became irrelevant. This apart, even if it is assumed, for a moment, that the signature of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdrawn. Such an action, on the part of respondent No. 3, suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot, therefore, be sustained. The petitioner has, therefore, great substance in contending that the respondents/authorities have consciously and deliberately delayed and have, eventually, refused to grant certificate of registration enabling the petitioner to trade in coal, in the State of Tripura, for only the reasons, which are untenable in law and not bona fide. It may be noted that the order, dated November 23, 2010, passed by the revisional authority, shows that the petitioner was directed to file afresh applications by curing the defects, which are mentioned in the order, dated August 31, 2010. It may also be noted that the order, dated August 31, 2010, was interfered with by the revisional authority on the ground that the rejection of the petitioner's application was on technical grounds. Be that as it may, the petitioner has, in terms of the directions issued by the revisional authority, cured the defects to the extent possible, but the respondent No. 3 is clearly adamant not to grant the registration to the petitioner. The consequence is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004, only if he makes sale of coal in the State of Tripura and since there is no dealer, dealing the sale of coal in the State of Tripura, as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent, to become liable to tax under the TVAT Act, 2004, in respect of sale of coal, the petitioner has no other alternative but to import coal from outside the State of Tripura. Situated thus, when the petitioner applied for permission to import coal in the State of Tripura and the said import being the petitioner's first entry as a dealer of coal into the State of Tripura, the petitioner could not have been stopped from bringing the coal into the State of Tripura inasmuch as in that event, the petitioner can never become liable to tax in respect of sale of coal in the State of Tripura and, consequently, he can never become liable to apply for registration under the TVAT Act, 2004, and/or registration under the CST Act, 1956. Similarly, under section 7(1) of the CST Act, 1956, only a dealer liable to pay tax under the CST Act, 1956, is also liable to be registered under the said Act. Under section 7(2) of the CST Act, 1956, notwithstanding the fact that the dealer is not liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n contravention of law, he cannot be allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind, because he is presumed to know the law and he must act within the law. In such circumstances, the person, inflicting injury on the other person, may be regarded as guilty of malice in law, though he might have acted ignorantly or even innocently. In the case at hand, the respondents may have acted in ignorance of law, they cannot, however, escape and cannot be allowed to escape on the ground of their ignorance inasmuch as they, being the authorities under the relevant enactments, must be treated to have known the law and having known the law, they must be treated to have not acted in accordance with law. Each of the grounds, which the respondents have advanced for the purpose of refusing to grant registration certificate, is based on wholly non-existent fact. Such action, therefore, suffers from malice in law even if their action was in ignorance of law. Thus, though the petitioner has been able to make out a good case for directing payment of suitable compensation for the losses, which the petitioner has suffered, this court, at this stage, refrains from passing any order directing payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
