Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2604 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRegistration of dealer - Section 28(1) of the Act - the dealer is a registered dealer and the retail store situated at Kishanganj is its additional place of business and the dealer has already got a centralized registration under Rule 3(9)(a) of the Rules, 2005, w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and the original certificate of registration is submitted in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the purpose of amendment and sought further time in writing to produce the ledger book as was directed but the respondent no. 2 passed the order dated 23.01.2015 referred above in terms of Section 28(1) of the Act, treating the petitioner as an unregistered Dealer. Whether Kishanganj Branch of M/S. V.MART RETAIL LTD. may be treated as a dealer for the purpose of assessment of tax due and imposing penalty in terms of Section 28(1) of the Act? - Held that: - It is evident from the facts noticed above that M/S V. MART RETAIL LTD. is a registered dealer having TIN VAT NO. 10050916069 under Patliputra Circle of Commercial Taxes, in terms of Sub-rule 9 (a) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2005 which talks about ‘registration of dealer’. Rule 3(3) of the Rule 2005 stipulates that an application for registration shall be filed before the Circle In-charge within whose jurisdiction the place of business of the dealer is situated, but on the other hand, Rule 3(9)(a) provides that such dealers who have got more places of business than one situated in different circles of Bihar shall apply before the Commissioner or before the officer specially authorized in this behalf - the dealer(petitioner) was not required to make application for registration before the Circle In-charge of Commercial Tax, Kishanganj, rather he was required to make application before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the purpose of amendment of the certificate of registration. Once the petitioner made application for amendment of certificate under Section 20 of the Act furnishing the information required under Section 23 of the Act, it could not be treated as a dealer evading registration. The order impugned dated 23.01.2015, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kishanganj Circle, Kishanganj (respondent no. 2) is without jurisdiction as well as based on wrong notion of law - application allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|