SAMAYAMANTHULA SRIHARI Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be the owners of the house bearing door No. 3-1-218 situated at Bhimavaram, West Godavari district. Their grievance is that the third respondent who is not even a tenant had applied for registration under section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, in respect of the premises referred to above and got the registration certificate granted on 30/07/1991, by the Commercial Tax Department. It may be noticed that section 12 of the Act which deals with registration of dealers does not mention anything about the premises. It merely mentions about the nature of the business that the dealer intends to carry on. However, rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, which prescribes the procedure for submitting an application for registration provides that every application for registration shall be in form "D". Rule 28(10)(d) provides that where the authority is satisfied that the application is not bona fide and the particulars contained therein are not correct and complete, he may reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing. The sole grievance of the writ petitioners is that the particulars mentioned in the application for registration submitted by the third respondent, relating to the premises in question, are not correct and therefore, the registering authority is not justified in granting the registration certificate. Neither section 12 of the Act nor rule 28 confers any right on a third party to file objections at the stage of consideration of the application for registration of a dealer. The enquiry that is contemplated under rule 28 is intended to enable the registering authority to find out whether the application submitted for registration is bona fide or not and whether the particulars mentioned therein are correct or not. If the registering authority is satisfied with the particulars and bona fide nature of the application and has granted the registration certificate, it is not open to a third party to question the validity of the certificate, that too by filing a writ petition. If the third respondent is not the, tenant in respect of the premises in question and if the writ petitioners have any objection for the occupation of the premises in question by the third respondent, the proper course open to them is to approach the forum having jurisdiction in the matter and seek appropriate relief regarding eviction or otherwise. So far as the present writ petition is concerned we do not see any grounds to entertain the same having regard to the provisions referred to above.

(2.) Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(3.) Writ petition dismissed.