Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) There is no justification for granting registration certificate to Anil Kumar Kesarwani on 18th September, 2010 which is two years and seven months from the date of the application and 15 months from the date of his death.

(b) Registration certificate has been issued without obtaining biometrics data of Anil Kumar Kesarwani and therefore, it cannot be treated to be a valid registration in the eyes of law.

(c) The order of the Insurance Co. dated 30th March, 2011 filed as Annexure CA-1, whereby the claim of the petitioner was declined by the insurance company having not been challenged, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

10. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions will show that under the erstwhile Act, there was no requirement of obtaining biometric data of a registered dealer. The erstwhile Act was repealed by U.P. VAT Act, 2008. It provided for introducing value added system of taxation for levy and collection of tax on sale or purchase of goods in the State of U.P. and for matters connected therefor and incidental thereto. Section 3 of the said Act provides for the incidence and levy of tax and stipulates that every dealer shall be liable to pay tax under this Act for each assessment year on his taxable turnover of sale or purchase or both, as the case may be, of taxable goods, on such rates and on such point of sale or purchase provided under section 4 or section 5. Section 17 of the U.P. VAT Act, provides for the manner in which dealers are to be registered thereunder. Relevant portion of section 17 is reproduced below :-

(6) --------------------------

(7) Every application for registration received under sub-rule (1) shall be disposed of in the manner provided in section 17 in following schedule of time:

(a) Biometric data and verification from original documents - one week;

(b) Site inspection and digital photograph of premises - one week;

(c) Processing of security, if required - 10 days;

(d) Issue of TIN -six days.

(8) If the registering authority after such enquiry as he may think fit, is satisfied that application is in order and information and documents submitted are correct and genuine, he shall cause the dealer to be registered with effect from the date of receipt of registration application...........

17. The other limb of the argument of the counsel for the Insurance Co. is that registration is invalid for non-availability of the biometric data of Anil Kumar Kesarwani.

18. A bare perusal of provision of erstwhile Act and the new Act will show that the requirement of obtaining biometric data is not the prerequisite for registering a person under the Act. Rather section 17(3) read with section 17(5) states that every dealer holding registration certificate under the erstwhile Act, as a dealer, is deemed to be registered under the new Act only upon making an application in Form VIII accompanied by certain documents and requisite fee without getting biometric verification done. This goes to show that provisions in this regard are not mandatory nor a pre-requisite for registering a dealer under the Act. Section 17(1) read with rule 32(7) further indicates that the requirement of obtaining biometric data has been provided only in case of a new dealer. The aforesaid provision further shows that the pre-requisite for filing such application by a new dealer relates to deposit of registration fee and submission of one of the document relating to his identity specified in Rule 31(2). The application thereafter is treated to be complete in all respect. The proviso to sub rule (2) of Rule 32 prohibits the Registering Authority from receiving incomplete application for registration. Admittedly, application was duly accepted being complete in all respect. Thereafter processing of the application takes place at the end of the department. Rule 32 (7) provides for the various steps to be taken by the department which interalia provides for obtaining biometric data,carrying out inspection of the site and digital photograph of the premises etc. etc. These formalities are to be carried out by the department but none of them are essential for entertaining the application and for grant of registration. The purpose of obtaining biometric data is to establish identity of a dealer in case of any dispute. It is for the benefit of the department itself. The department can very well waive these requirement if it is satisfied that it is already possessed of sufficient data to establish the identity of a dealer or the place of his business. Thus, non-obtaining of biometrics data, as in the instant case, will not invalidate the registration certificate. Further, the aforesaid exercise was required to be carried out by the department and not being under the control of a dealer, cannot be made a ground to invalidate the registration certificate granted to him. Consequently, the objection made in this regard by the Insurance Co. for denying the insurance claim to the petitioner, is not sustainable in law.