ALFINE KNIT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the respondent in PDL. 178/2007/A2 and to quash the impugned proceedings dated April 12, 2007 insofar as the petitioner is concerned and to further direct the respondent to issue fresh certificate of registration to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 from January 1, 2007.

(2.) THE petitioner is an exporter of ready -made garments and a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (TNGST Act). In order to introduce the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act), the State Government repealed the TNGST Act with effect from January 1, 2007. Those dealers who are registered under the TNGST Act were given Tax Payer Identification Number (TIN) by the State Government through its web site assigned to the dealers and they were permitted to file returns under the provisions of the TNVAT Act. However, as per the provisions of the TNVAT Rules, every registered dealer under the provisions of the TNGST Act shall file an application in form A along with a sufficiently stamped self -addressed envelope to the registering authority without payment of specified fee before February 15, 2007.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for both sides submitted that similarly placed persons like the petitioner filed W.P. No. 7024 of 2007 and by an order dated August 29, 2007, reported in Majri Steels v. Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchy [2007] 9 VST 433, this Court passed the following order : (at page 435) It is only under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 that the requirement to apply in a particular format before the particular time -limit was prescribed. Rule 4(8) of the Rules reads as follows: Rule 4(8): Every registered dealer whose certificate of registration was in force under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 shall file an application in Form A, along with a sufficiently stamped self -addressed envelope to the registering authority without payment of specified fee (before the 15th day of February 2007).A reading of Section 88(2) together with Rule 4(8) shows that a time -limit for submitting an application was fixed not under the statute, but under the subordinate legislation. Neither the Act nor the subordinate legislation prescribed the consequences of the failure of a registered dealer to apply within the time -limit prescribed. If that be so, the first respondent ought not to have issued the impugned order cancelling the registration even if the petitioner had not filed an application on January 18, 2007. Under such circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Therefore, it is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to submit an application within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon the petitioner submitting such an application, the first respondent shall apply the provisions of Section 88(2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders. Consequently, connected M. Ps. are closed. No costs.