Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 693 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTRequirement of Notice of change in the constitution of the firm - Certificate of registration – Held that:- Section 17 deals with registration of dealers and sub-section (14)(a) read with Explanation (II) would clearly show that where there is a change in the constitution of the firm without dissolution thereof, then it shall not be necessary for the dealer or the firm (the constitution whereof is changed) to apply for a fresh certificate of registration and then on information being furnished in the manner required by section 75, the certificate of registration shall be amended – It is not the case of the respondents that the change in the constitution of the firm was not informed to the Department in the proper format or within the prescribed period - As such, this Court is proceeding on the basis that the information was supplied by the petitioner on the requisite format and within the specified period - On information as required u/s 75 with regard to change of business, (which includes the change in the ownership or constitution of business or entering into partnership or other association in regard to his business [sub-sections (c) and (f)] having been given within the prescribed period of 30 days, Rule 33 of the Rules of 2008 would become applicable - Then as per Rule 33(3), when information Rule 33(1) is received by the competent authority, the correctness of the information has merely to be verified and since the respondents do not dispute the correctness of the information furnished by the petitioner, necessary amendment in the relevant records, including registration certificate, ought to have been made, as far as possible, within a period of 30 days. The present is not a case of transfer and is only a case relating to change in constitution of the firm hence in the absence of a registered dealer having been succeeded by another dealer by transfer, the provisions of Rule 35 of the Rules of 2008 would not be attracted - As such the order passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner for amending the registration certificate u/s 75 read with Rule 33 of the Rules is liable to be quashed - Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed - The impugned order dated 9.1.2014 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed - The respondents are directed to pass fresh order in the light of the observations made hereinabove – Decided in Favour of assessee.
|