9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1021X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant provisions, we also find that the primary reason as set out in the impugned order, to reject the application of the petitioner, is itself not supported by the provision. Even assuming that the application of the petitioner was a valid independent application, and the reason as furnished in the impugned order that as the earlier provisional registration was not submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled for issuance of a registration, was not a valid and justifiable reason to reject the application. We may not be required to delve on the illegality of the order dated 31 March, 2023, for the reason that Mr. Naniwadekar, on instructions, submits that his client would intend to withdraw the application dated 30 September, 2022 on which the impugned order dated 31 March, 2023 has been passed. In the peculiar facts of the case, we are inclined to accept such request as made by Mr. Naniwadekar. This would obviously render the impugned order inconsequential. We also accept the contention as made on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 04 April, 2022 would continue to operate to the benefit of the petitioner as there is nothing on record to show that s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is, however, stated that the petitioner could not trace the certificate. Although such benefit was taken by the petitioner for certain number of years, without an objection by the department, subsequently, the tax authorities called upon the petitioner to produce the registration certificate. The petitioner hence made an application on 14 October, 2019 to the respondents to obtain a duplicate certificate of registration under Section 12A of the Act. However, as such application was not responded, a fresh application was made by the petitioner on 19 April, 2022. The petitioner had contended that both the applications were not decided and duplicate certificate was also not issued to the petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, on 25 March, 2022, the petitioner applied for a fresh provisional certificate under Section 12A (1) (ac) (i) of the Act, which was in the prescribed form (Form 10A) as per Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Although the application for provisional registration was made on 04 April, 2022, an order on Form No. 10AC under Section 12A (1) (ac) (i) for assessment years 2022-23 to 2026-27 was passed by the competent authority thereby granting registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the impugned order could not have been passed by respondent no. 1, when already registration was granted to the petitioner on 04 April, 2022 and which was to operate for a period of five years (from assessment year 2022-23 till 2026-27). 10. Mr. Naniwadekar submits that, in fact, in the above circumstances, it was absolutely not necessary for the petitioner to make a fresh application, which the petitioner made on 30 September, 2022 and on which the impugned order was passed. It is submitted that it was certainly a mistake on the part of the petitioner to make such application. 11. Mr. Naniwadekar submits that the petitioner is willing to withdraw such application for the reason that, as on date, a valid registration granted to the petitioner (dated 04 April, 2022) under Section 12AB subsists and continues to operate to the benefit of the petitioner. It is his submission that in the teeth of the registration dated 04 April, 2022, the impugned order dated 31 March, 2023 passed on a mistaken application is ex-facie illegal and cannot subsist. His submission is also that in any event the registration dated 04 April, 2022 would remain unaffected by the impugned order dated 31 Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Sehmalpur Jalalpur Jaunpur v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 139 taxmann.com 56 (SC) . Mr. Naniwadekar submits that in the proceedings of such case, the challenge was to an order dated 31 January, 2017 passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby the High Court had taken a view that non-response to the application under Section 12A read with Section 12AA of the Act within a period of six months would not bring about deemed registration of the application made under the said provision. It is submitted that such decision of the Supreme Court also deals with the position prior to the 2022 amendment as brought about to the provision of Sections 12A and 12AA of the Act. It is hence his submission that considering the prior decision in Society for Promn. of Edn. (supra) as also the subsequent decision in Harshit Foundation (supra), the petitioner in the facts of the present case is not at a disadvantage, inasmuch as the petitioner would stand protected in view of the prior decision in Society for Promn. of Edn.(supra). It is submitted that even assuming that decision of the Supreme Court in Harshit Foundation (supra) is applicable, the petitioner remains protected under a valid r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inclined to accept such request as made by Mr. Naniwadekar. This would obviously render the impugned order inconsequential. We also accept the contention as made on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 04 April, 2022 would continue to operate to the benefit of the petitioner as there is nothing on record to show that such order is not legal, valid and non-subsisting as on date. 19. Mr. Naniwadekar s contention on the legal position as brought about by the decision of the Supreme Court firstly in the case of Society for Promn. of Edn. (supra) which recognized it to be a legal position, that non-consideration / non-response to an application, made by the assessee under Section 12A read with Section 12AA of the Act, would bring about a situation of deemed registration being granted, would apply to a situation prior to the petitioner obtaining registration on 04 April 2022, that is on an application made by the petitioner on 25 March, 2022. It would be appropriate to note the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Society for Promn. Of Edn. s case on the Revenue s appeal being rejected thereby upholding the decision of the Allahabad High Court, recognizing a situation of deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on non-deciding the application for registration under Section 12AA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) within a period of six months, there shall be deemed registration or not. 3. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with and considered in detail by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in its decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Muzafar Nagar Development Authority [2013] 38 taxmann.com 21/219 Taxman 318. 4. After considering in detail the provisions of Section 12AA (2) of the Act and having found that there is no specific provision in the Act by which it provides that on non-deciding the registration application under section 12AA (2) within a period of six months there shall be deemed registration, the Full Bench of the High Court has rightly held that even if in a case where the registration application under Section 12AA is not decided within six months, there shall not be any deemed registration. 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court. 6. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. 21. Mr. Naniwadekar submits that the decision of the Supreme Court in Society for Promn. Of Edn. (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kunhayammed [Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359] and summed up in para 44 are affirmed and reiterated. 26.2. We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases as under: ( Kunhayammed case [Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359], SCC p. 384) (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur v. Society for Promn. of Edn., Allahabad (supra). Be that as it may, such apprehension of the petitioner at this stage, is quite premature, as there is nothing on record that respondent no. 1 has initiated any action to cancel the registration of the petitioner. We, therefore, do not delve on such issue and keep all contentions of the petitioner open to be asserted at the appropriate time and in the appropriate proceedings, if the need so arises. 25. We, accordingly, dispose of this petition accepting Mr. Naniwadekar s statement that the petitioner would intend to withdraw its application dated 30 September 2022 rendering the order dated 31 March, 2023 of no consequence. Hence the following order:- ORDER i. The application dated 30 September, 2022 filed by the petitioner for registration under Section 12A (1) (ac) (i) of the Act is permitted to be withdrawn. As a consequence thereof, the impugned order dated 31 March, 2023 is rendered inconsequential. ii. It is noted that the registration dated 04 April, 2022 as granted to the petitioner under the provisions in question as on date is legal and valid from assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
