The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) vs M/S. Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd
- Citation2016 SCC OnLine Mad 33617
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A purchasing dealer is entitled to rely upon the certificate of registration of a selling dealer and is legally protected when acting upon such a certificate while it is current. A subsequent or retrospective cancellation of the selling dealer's registration has no effect upon a purchasing dealer who dealt with the selling dealer when its registration was valid. The purchasing dealer is not obliged to investigate whether facts exist that would justify cancellation of the selling dealer's registration; to impose such an obligation would nullify the statutory protections afforded to persons dealing with registered dealers.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.14349, 14350 of 2011, dated 12.10.2011. For appellant : Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, Standing Counsel for (Taxes) ------
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) Both these Appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the Respondent in Writ Petition Nos. 14349 and 14350 of 2011, who seeks to challenge the correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge in the common order rendered on 12.10.2011.
2. Perceptibly the question raised by the Department has in fact been answered by the Supreme Court, in State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Trading Company (1998) Vol.109 Sales Tax Cases 439 in the following words:-
"5. In our view, the High Court was right. A purchasing dealer is entitled by law to rely upon the certificate of registration of the selling dealer and to act upon it. Whatever may be the effect of a retrospective cancellation upon the selling dealer, it can have no effect upon any person who has acted upon the strength of a registration certificate when the registration was current. The argument on behalf of the department that it was the duty of persons dealing with registered dealers to find our whether a state of facts exists which would justify the cancellation of registration must be rejected. To accept it would be to nullify the provisions of the statute which entitle persons dealing with registered dealers to act upon the strength of registration certificates."
3. The learned single Judge has in fact subscribed to the same view and hence allowed the writ petition.
4. We fail to see any reason, much less a tenable one, to entertain these appeals against the view taken by the learned single Judge, which is a correct view of law.
5. Hence, both these appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.
(N.R.R.J) (A.S.M.J) 10.11. 2016 Index: Yes Internet: Yes gr.
NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J and DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J
gr.
W.A.Nos.1367 and 1368 of 2016
10.11.2016
http://www.judis.nic.in
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free