INCOME TAX MATTERS ( A monthly journal on - Income tax and wealth tax- since 1999) - ( subscription for the year 2009 (TWO VOLUMES) is only Rs. 1300/-) - For subcription and to Know more click here

 

VAT (Value Added Tax)

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA - Shri Hari Sahib Steel Industries Versus The State of Punjab dated 05.03.2008

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 3331 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 05.03.2008

Shri Hari Sahib Steel Industries, Jassaran Road, Mandi Gobindgarh .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS

 

Applied for the registration on 6.8.2007 under PVAT & CST Act and completed all the formalities.The Depatment is not taking the decision on the application though it is obligatory on the Registering Authority to decide the application within a period of 30
days. Held, in view of the aforesaid facts, without issuing notice to the respondents, as it will un-necessary delay the matter, to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 6.8.2007, in accordance with law and take a decision by passing a speaking order within a period of one month.

 

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
* * *
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated Officer, Ward No.3, Mandi Gobindgarh (respondent No.2 herein) to consider its application for registration under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and grant the Registration Certificate in accordance with law.
It is case of the petitioner that it applied for the aforesaid registration on 6.8.2007 and completed all the formalities. It is further case of the petitioner that vide notice dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P-8), it was asked to comply with certain more formalities, which were also complied with. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in spite of all this, respondent No.2 is sitting on the matter and is not taking the decision on the application dated 6.8.2007, though it is obligatory on the Registering Authority to decide an application for registration under the Act, within a period of 30
days.

In view of the aforesaid facts, without issuing notice to the respondents, as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 6.8.2007, in accordance with law and take a decision by passing a speaking order within a period of one month.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) JUDGE

March 05, 2008