RAJKUMAR CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the only grievance raised by the petitioner is that the sales tax authorities, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, have wrongly rejected his application for grant of a registration certificate as a dealer under the provisions of section 16 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (in short "the Act"), read with rule 8 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (in short "the Rules" ).

(2.) THE facts not in dispute are that the petitioner did not appear before the Sales Tax Officer, Katni on January 15, 1987 and March 6, 1987 and the application for grant of certificate of registration was rejected by the impugned order dated March 6, 1987 (annexure B) only on the ground of the absence of the petitioner before the Sales Tax Officer.

(3.) THE petitioner made an attempt for rectification of review of the aforesaid order of the revisional authority by moving an application under section 45 of the Act, by pointing out that although his statement was recorded by the Sales Tax Inspector at Katni at late hours of the day on March 6, 1987, there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the Sales Tax Officer because on March 6, 1987, during office hours he had gone to Gondia to attend to his wife who was pregnant and whose delivery was due. The revisional authority, however, did not accept the above explanation of the petitioner was rejected his application for review also by the impugned order dated February 23, 1988 (annexure H ). The petitioner explained that he had returned from Gondia to Katni in the afternoon of March 6, 1987 and only thereafter his statement was recorded by the Sales Tax Inspector, concerning his application for grant of certificate of registration as a dealer.