TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May 7, 1992, passed by the Additional Commissioner by which he did not interfere with grant of the aforesaid certificate. The case of the applicant in brief is that it was initially dealing in shares and loans and then commenced a business in purchase and sale of bottles. When it realised that a registration certificate as a dealer under the 1941 Act was necessary for facilitating business transactions, it voluntarily applied for a registration certificate under section 8 of the 1941 Act on June 15, 1988. The requirement of exceeding the quantum of sales of Rs. 10,000 was fulfilled on February 18, 1988. The application under section 8 was rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer by an order dated November 3, 1988. The applicant went on revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s by filing an affidavitin-opposition, maintaining that if during pendency of an application under section 8 the dealer incurs liability to pay tax under section 4(2), the application loses the character of an application for voluntary registration and becomes one for compulsory registration. If section 7(3a) is applied, the result allegedly is that the certificate of registration should be granted with effect from the date of incurring the liability to pay tax. The arguments of Mr. A.K. Roy, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. T.N. De, the learned State Representative have proceeded on the lines of the pleadings. In our view, the matter may be looked at from a different point of view. The application was under section 8 for volu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be considered as one under section 8. At least from June 15, 1988 to February 16, 1989, the applicant was not just qualified or liable for registration under section 7. Therefore, it is necessary to consider this case as an application under section 8. The application was rejected and disposed of on November 3, 1988. It is clear from the facts disclosed and the findings recorded by revisional authorities that on November 3, 1988, the applicant had acquired all the qualifications necessary for registration under section 8. Therefore, it is the order dated November 3, 1988 which caused all the problems. It was rightly set aside by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated January 25, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
