M/s. Ambika Traders vs Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Ujjain and others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—By filing this petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.01.2012 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sagar Division, Sagar (Camp at Ujjain) in Revision Case No. 21/2011, whereby the revisional authority has maintained the order dated 16.04.2004 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle No. 3, Bharatpuri, Ujjain, cancelling the petitioner''s provisional registration certificate. The petitioner was granted provisional registration certificate in terms of Section 23 of the MP Commercial Tax Act, 1994 read with Rule 9 (1) of the Rules made thereunder. Even after repeated notices being issued, the petitioner failed to produce the account books and the requisite documents for verification. In the circumstances, vide order dated 16.02.2004 the petitioner''s provisional registration certificate, which was valid only up to 18.02.2004, was cancelled.

The said order passed on 16.02.2004 was challenged by the petitioner in revision after six years six months and ten days. The reason assigned by the petitioner before the revisional authority seeking condonation of delay was that he got information of cancellation of his provisional registration certificate only when he received copy of the assessment order of the year 2007-08 and on receipt of information, he submitted an application for supplying certified copy of the registration cancellation certificate order, which was supplied to him on 25.05.2011 and thereafter, revision was filed.

The revisional authority noted that after issuance of the provisional registration certificate, which was valid up to 18.02.2004 in spite of repeated opportunities being given, the petitioner did not appear for verification of the documents, and as such, the provisional registration certificate was cancelled on 16.02.2004. The said order having been challenged after long lapse of time without there being any proper reason for condonation of delay, the revisional authority rightly declined to interfere in it. When the provisional certificate was itself valid up to 18.02.2004, it was for the petitioner to have enquired about the progress in the matter of grant of permanent certificate and it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was not having knowledge that his provisional registration certificate has been cancelled which itself was about to lapse after two days.

The petitioner, who failed to take appropriate steps after 18.02.2004 i.e. the date up to which the provisional certificate was valid and did not challenge the order of cancellation of the provisional registration certificate dated 16.02.2004 for more than six years, is not entitled for any indulgence of this Court in the order passed by the revisional authority, in this petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.