TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required area for conducting business. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to genuinity of the business that is going to be carried on at the place of business. Further, it is not for the Revenue to suggest the extent of land that is necessary to carry on the business. It is for the businessman to decide the same. The Revenue should not obstruct the assessee from carrying on the business at every stage with the tax collectors point of view, but would deal with the matter at the point of view of assessee. In such circumstances, the reason given by the respondent is not in accordance with law and against the provisions of the Act and Rules. W.P. allowed. This court directs the petitioner to re-submit the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, it is not possible to do business. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner complied with all the provisions of the Act and Rules and also filled up all the columns in form A and no defect was pointed out by the second respondent and under such circumstances, there is no impediment for the second respondent to grant registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. He further submitted that the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the registration is not in accordance with law and hence the same may be set aside. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) submits that the enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application. Form A is prescribed for applying registration. There is no dispute that the petitioner had satisfied the provisions relating to application for registration in form A. The second respondent rejected the registration by order dated June 4, 2012, stating as below: The place of business was verified by the enforcement wing officer. At the time of verification on May 7, 2012, a person, namely, Thiru Udaya Raj, S/o. Dakra Ram was present and stated that the applicant had gone to his native place. It was found that the place of business was consisted of 80 sq.ft., only and it is not possible to do business in SS pipe and all kind of metals in the proposed place of business which co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Advocate (Taxes) is unable to point out any specific provision under the Act and Rules regarding the requirement of space for carrying on the business. There is no such condition prescribed under the Act specifying such required area for conducting business. Due to technological development in the present time, business can be carried on in less space and the dealers can supply materials against the purchase order directly to the customers and there is no necessity for enormous space. Learned Government Advocate (Taxes) also submitted the Circular No. 11/2011 dated March 25, 2011 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the nature of guidelines. Paragraph 4 of the said circular reads as under: 4. Prior inspection is not nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
