I. A. Ansari, J.

1. This writ petition raises, broadly speaking, five important questions, in the context of the scope and ambit of the power of a Sales Tax Commissioner, under the relevant Sales Tax statute, in respect of granting of 'registration' to a person as a 'dealer'. The questions are:

(i) What constitute the object and purpose of 'registration' of a 'dealer' under the Sales Tax laws?

(ii) What is the scope of 'enquiry' envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, in the matter of granting of 'registration' to a 'dealer' ?

(iii) Whether the 'satisfaction', which sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and Section 7(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with Rule 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, contemplates, is a 'satisfaction' without any limits or fetters ?

(iv) Whether refusal of 'registration', in the present case, both under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is based on irrelevant considerations having no nexus with the object behind incorporating the provisions for 'registration' under the said Acts, and, if so, whether the refusal to register the petitioner as a 'dealer', under the relevant fiscal statutes, suffers from malice in law, if not malice in fact ?

(v) Whether the petitioner is, in the facts and attending circumstances, entitled to compensation on account of the conduct of the respondents in not allowing 'registration' to the petitioner as 'dealer', under the relevant fiscal statutes, so as to enable the petitioner to carry on its business ?

2. Before one attempts to answer the questions posed above, imperative it is to take into consideration the circumstances, where-under the present writ petition has come to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The material facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, may, therefore, be fist noted.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

(i) The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, for carrying out, in the State of Tripura, the business in trading of coal and with the aim to set up, in future, the business of stone boulder crushing. The petitioner accordingly submitted, on 09.02.2010, applications to the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-VIII, Agartala, seeking 'registration' as 'dealer' under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TVAT Act, 2004'), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CST Act, 1956'). By a communication, dated 10.02.2010, the Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-VIII, Agartala, requested the petitioner to submit various documents. The petitioner accordingly submitted the documents by its letter, dated 10.03.2010. On receiving the communication, dated 10.03.2010, aforementioned along with the documents, which the writ petitioner had submitted, the Superintendent of Taxes informed the petitioner, vide another communication, dated 11.03.2010, that the documents, submitted by the petitioner, were not in order and the petitioner was asked to submit the documents, in terms of its earlier communication, dated 10.02.2010, and some new documents as well. Responding to the communication, dated 11.03.2010, the petitioner submitted some more documents.

(ii) In the meanwhile, the petitioner's registered office was shifted. Following the change in the address of the petitioner's registered office, the entire files, containing the materials for processing the petitioner's application seeking 'registration' as a 'dealer', were transferred to the office of the respondent No. 3, namely, Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-I, Government of Tripura, Finance (Excise and Taxation) Department. The respondent authorities acknowledged the change, in the registered office of the petitioner, by their communication, dated 18.