Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2011 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 870 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhat constitute the object and purpose of "registration" of a "dealer" under the sales tax laws? What is the scope of "enquiry" envisaged under sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, in the matter of granting of "registration" to a "dealer"? Whether the "satisfaction", which sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and section 7(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with rule 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, contemplates, is a "satisfaction" without any limits or fetters? Whether refusal of "registration", in the present case, both under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is based on irrelevant considerations having no nexus with the object behind incorporating the provisions 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 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 of compensation to the petitioner by the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3. The present one is, however, a fit case, where the writ petition needs to be allowed with reasonable cost. This writ petition is allowed with cost of ₹ 10,000 to be paid within one month from today and the impugned communication, dated December 30, 2010, is hereby set aside and quashed. Respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to grant to the petitioner-company necessary registration certificate in accordance with law without any further delay and within a period of, at best, two weeks from today.
|