9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er officer had power to require the first respondent to produce the documents enumerated as item No.2 in Ext.P8 notice. Held that:- The explanation provided to Rule 9(2) is not exhaustive. It only provides that clarification includes modification or correction of particulars required in the application for registration. It does not mean that no other clarification can be sought in respect of information furnished or documents produced along with the application for registration. The officer concerned is empowered under Rule 9(2) to issue notice to a person who has filed application for registration under Rule 8 to furnish clarification with regard to any information provided in that application or documents furnished therewith. Such clarification may include information to ascertain the legality of the business proposed to be conducted by the applicant but it does not include furnishing of any documents other than the documents required to be uploaded under Rule 8(4). The application, which may be submitted by the first respondent afresh, shall be considered by the appellants de hors the documents mentioned under item No.2 in Ext.P8 notice. However, on verification of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice by 08.02.2019. However, the first respondent received Ext.P10 order dated 02.02.2019 rejecting the application for registration. 3. The first respondent filed the writ petition challenging the validity of Ext.P8 notice and Ext.P10 order, seeking a relief of declaration that it is a registered dealer and it is entitled to get a certificate of registration. The first respondent also sought a direction to be issued to the State Tax Officer to issue certificate of registration to it in the prescribed form. Certain other incidental reliefs were also sought in the writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of the fourth respondent in the writ petition (State Tax Officer, Palakkad). It was stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner was not entitled to have any deemed registration. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner had failed to produce the information required as per Ext.P8 notice which was obligatory under the Act. 5. The learned Single Judge upheld the defect noted as item No.1 in Ext.P8 notice. However, regarding the documents mentioned under item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h such documents which may be required and also such details which may be required to be furnished under the Act and the Rules which are relevant. The first respondent has not filed any appeal challenging this finding also. 9. Learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with Ext.P10 order rejecting the application for registration submitted by the first respondent. However, learned Single Judge has given opportunity to the first respondent to file fresh application for registration. This finding also remains unchallenged by the first respondent/writ petitioner. 10. The appellants are aggrieved by the direction given by the learned Single Judge that on submission of fresh application by the writ petitioner, such application shall be considered de hors the reasons stated in Ext.P10 order. 11. Section 22 of the Act states who are the persons liable for registration under the Act. Section 23 of the Act states the persons who are not liable for registration. Section 24 of the Act provides for compulsory registration in certain cases. Section 25(1) of the Act provides that every person who is liable to be registered under the Act shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt A of FORM GST REG-01 . ( 3) Where the proper officer is satisfied with the clarification, information or documents furnished by the applicant, he may approve the grant of registration to the applicant within a period of seven working days from the date of the receipt of such clarification or information or documents. ( 4) Where no reply is furnished by the applicant in response to the notice issued under sub-rule (2) or where the proper officer is not satisfied with the clarification, information or documents furnished, he shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject such application and inform the applicant electronically in FORM GST REG- 05 . ( 5) If the proper officer fails to take any action.- ( a) within a period of three working days from the date of submission of the application; or ( b) within a period of seven working days from the date of the receipt of the clarification, information or documents furnished by the applicant under sub-rule (2), the application for grant of registration shall be deemed to have been approved. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. Rule 9(2) empowers the proper officer to electronically issue a notice to the applicant in the prescribed form requiring the applicant to furnish clarification, information or documents. Rule 9(2) has two limbs which deal with two circumstances under which the proper officer has the power to issue such a notice. The first circumstance is where the application submitted under Rule 8 is found to be deficient, either in terms of any information or any document required to be furnished under that rule. The documents required to be produced in terms of the first limb of Rule 9(2) are restricted to documents required to be furnished under Rule 8(4) which had not been already furnished by the applicant along with the application and no other document. In the instant case, the first respondent was required to furnish the documents shown as item No.2 in Ext.P8 notice to prove that he was authorised to deal with lottery tickets under various statutes. The documents so required to be produced were not documents required to be furnished under Rule 8(4). Therefore, the first limb of Rule 9(2) has no application to the instant case. The proper officer had no power to require the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rection of particulars required in the application for registration. It does not mean that no other clarification can be sought in respect of information furnished or documents produced along with the application for registration. 25. Learned counsel for the first respondent has invited our attention to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27158/2017 in which it has been held that the officials under the tax department have no power to enter into satisfaction as to whether lottery is conducted in compliance with the Lotteries Regulation Act or not. We have perused this judgment. We see nothing in this judgment which restricts or prohibits the power of the proper officer under Rule 9(2) to seek clarification as provided under that provision. 26. The upshot of the discussion above is that, the officer concerned is empowered under Rule 9(2) to issue notice to a person who has filed application for registration under Rule 8 to furnish clarification with regard to any information provided in that application or documents furnished therewith. Such clarification may include information to ascertain the legality of the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
