TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the date of commencement of business would only be for availing the benefit of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 16(2). Clauses (a) and (b) are confined to payment of tax under Section 6(5) and opting for payment of tax under Section 8. This would not take in the input tax credit as claimed by the petitioner. A reading of Section 11 would indicate that only a registered dealer would have the benefit of input tax credit. The benefit conferred under the proviso to Section 16(2) as substituted in the statute book in 2009 only grants benefit for payment of tax under Section 6(5) and exercising an option for payment of tax under Section 8. The benefit of input tax credit does not flow necessarily from the proviso as substi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 deeming it to be the date of commencement of business. Actually, the business commenced on 2.2.2006. At the outset, we have to notice the proviso to Section 16(2) of the Act as it existed at the time of application for registration and the grant, which reads as follows: Provided that the date of the registration shall be the date of filing of the valid application before the registering authority . 3. Hence, at the time when the registration was granted, the Assessing Officer could have registered the applicant as a dealer only from the date of filing of the application. Rightly or wrongly, the registration was granted from the deemed commencement of business i.e. 8.2.2006 and we would not interfere with that as of now. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o that in the case of dealers against whom an offence has been detected under section 67 of the Act before filing application for registration, registration shall be granted under this sub-section subject to the finalisation of the proceedings in respect of the offence so detected. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader in defence, relied K.K.Abraham Company v. Sales Tax Officer and Others [(2013) 64 VST 122 (Ker)] to argue that, if at all, the registration has to relate back to the date of commencement of business only for the purposes of clause (a) (b) of the proviso. 6. We have carefully gone through the Division Bench judgment cited. We find that in that case, as in the present case, the registration was made prior to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rry House and held in paragraph No.9 thereof as follows:- 9. The above amendment actually came into effect only from April 1, 2009, whereas the dealer was granted registration on September 24, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2008. It was the said certificate which was sought to be corrected, for getting the registration with effect from April 1, 2007. This was vehemently opposed by the appellant/Department, which in turn was virtually accepted by the Division Bench in principle. However, analysing the scope of the proviso , it was made clear that, as per the new proviso, the registration granted will have retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the business, only for the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of the said prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
