IMPORTANT POINTS:
The officer concerned is empowered under Rule 9(2) to issue notice to a person who has filed application for registration under Rule 8 to furnish clarification with regard to any information provided in that application or documents furnished therewith- Such clarification may include information to ascertain the legality of the business proposed to be conducted by the applicant but it does not include furnishing of any documents other than the documents required to be uploaded under Rule 8(4).

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J

This appeal involves interpretation of Rule 9(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') regarding furnishing of clarification, information and documents in relation to an application for registration made under Section 25 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The writ petition W.P(C) No.7445/2019 was filed by M/s.West Bengal Lottery Stockists Syndicate Private Limited, the first respondent in the appeal. The first respondent submitted online application for registration under the Act in terms of Rule 8. The application was uploaded on 16.01.2019. The first respondent received Ext.P8 notice dated 31.01.2019 from the State Tax Officer seeking additional information as follows:

“1. Documents to prove the ownership of the business premises and Bank details of the directors are not uploaded.

2. As per your application for registration you are intending to deal Lottery Services. But documents to prove that you are authorized to deal the lottery services under the following provisions are not furnished. 1) The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998. (2) The Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2010. (3) Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Rules, 2005. (4) Kerala Paper Lotteries (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2018. (5) Direction u/s. 10 of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 vide FNO/17013/2/2011 CSR-I dated 2nd August 2011 by Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.”

The first respondent was directed to submit reply to the notice by 08.02.2019. However, the first respondent received Ext.P10 order dated 02.02.2019 rejecting the application for registration.

3. The first respondent filed the writ petition challenging the validity of Ext.P8 notice and Ext.P10 order, seeking a relief of declaration that it is a registered dealer and it is entitled to get a certificate of registration. The first respondent also sought a direction to be issued to the State Tax Officer to issue certificate of registration to it in the prescribed form. Certain other incidental reliefs were also sought in the writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of the fourth respondent in the writ petition (State Tax Officer, Palakkad). It was stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner was not entitled to have any deemed registration. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the writ petitioner had failed to produce the information required as per Ext.P8 notice which was obligatory under the Act.

5. The learned Single Judge upheld the defect noted as item No.1 in Ext.P8 notice. However, regarding the documents mentioned under item No.2 in Ext.P8, the learned Single Judge found that production of those documents by the applicant could not be insisted. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition stating as follows:

“This Court is of the view that the matter shall be reconsidered de hors any reasons as stated in the impugned order and a fresh decision shall be taken in accordance with the GST Act and Rules on submitting the application by the petitioner. The previous rejection of the application will not stand in the way of the petitioner in filing a fresh application. It is made clear that de hors the reasons stated in the impugned order, it shall be considered afresh.”

Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State and its officials have filed this appeal.

6. We have heard Sri.Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the appellants who was assisted by Sri.C.E.Unnikrishnan, Special Government Pleader (Taxes) and also Sri.A.Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent.

7. The first respondent had raised a plea that it is entitled to have deemed registration as provided under Rule 9(5) because no action was taken on the application submitted by it within a period of three working days from the date of submission of the application. This p