SUNDHA METALS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both sides, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner is the proprietor of the firm and the petitioner has applied for sales tax registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and has submitted the application form with connected records to the second respondent for getting tax payer identification number for the business. The petitioner has filed the application form for new registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on April 2, 2012. The application for sales tax registration along with D.D. for Rs. 500 was received by the second respondent. Such application was made by the petitioner for doing business in stainless steel pipes ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The second respondent has referred the new registration application to the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement Wing, Chennai North. The place of business was verified by the enforcement wing officials and thereafter, the second respondent has rejected the application in RC 300/2012 dated June 4, 2012 stating the new registration application was rejected on the ground that the place of business was consisted of 80 sq. ft., and therefore, it is not possible to do business. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

(2.) 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.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) submits that the enforcement wing officials inspected the place of business and found that it was only 80 sq. ft. and hence, on such verification, the second respondent rejected the registration that with 80 sq. ft. place, it is not possible to conduct business.