GOLDEN KNITTS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, [hereinafter referred to as "the TNGST Act"] and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, with effect from 15.05.2006. With effect from 01.01.2007, the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, [hereinafter referred to as "the TNVAT Act"] came into effect. Those who are registered dealers under the TNGST Act, were automatically assigned to Tax Payer Identification Number [TIN Number] by the State Government. As per Section 88(2) of the TNVAT Act, It is required to obtain a fresh registration certificate. Section 88(2) of the TNVAT Act reads as under:

(2.) While the matter stood thus, according to the petitioner, he submitted an application to the respondents in Form A on 13.02.2007 for issuance of certificate of registration under the TNVAT Act. However, it appears that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled for non- submission of returns as per Rule 4(8) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, [hereinafter referred to as "the TNVAT Rules"]. As per the TNVAT Rules, the application should have been filed on or before 15.02.2007. Therefore, subsequent transactions by the petitioner were found to be illegal. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued a notice in R.C.No.2851/10 B2 dated 15.07.2010, directing the petitioner to file application for TIN certificate immediately. Challenging the notice, the writ petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he had submitted his application on 13.02.2007 and delivery book is produced by the petitioner as an evidence for having filed the application in Form A. Despite the receipt of the application, the first respondent failed to register him under the TNVAT Act and therefore, the notice of the first respondent is illegal. Furthermore, as per the Judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Majri Steels vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchy and another, 2007 9 VST 433 (Mad), the Act does not specify any time limit for fresh registration under the TNVAT Act and therefore, time limit imposed by the respondents through his subordinate legislation is illegal and ultravires. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.