Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. - (1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length.
(2.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner against a judgment dated July 18, 2008 See page 124 Supra passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. RN 387 of 2007. The only question that arises in this application is that if the dealer has failed to comply with the provisions in Sub -section (2) of Section 23, he would not get any benefit to register as dealer under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in question from the date of the application which he has filed. Incidentally, it is admitted that there was a default on the part of the petitioner to apply under Sub -section (2) of Section 23 for registration of the said VAT Act. According to Sub -section (2) of Section 23, it amply clarifies that a dealer is required to make an application from the date of incurring liability to pay tax under the VAT Act and such application shall be filed from the date of ninety days by the dealer. It further appears from Section 24 of the said Act that every dealer liable to pay tax shall make an application for registration in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority, and such application shall be accompanied by a declaration in the prescribed form duly filled up and signed by the dealer concerned for making such application and after being satisfied of such application, the prescribed authority shall grant a certificate of registration in such form as has been specifically mentioned in the said Act and subject to the conditions as prescribed thereunder. It is also to be noted that such certificate is to be issued within a particular period as mentioned therein.
(3.) THE other point which has been tried to be urged before us is Sub -rule (2) of Rule 6 which has been framed by the State authorities under Section 114 of the said VAT Act should be declared as ultra vires since according to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner the said Rule 6(2) is in violation of the objects and reasons from which the Act has been enacted by the legislators. It appears that the question of declaring the rule or section is whether it comes within the purview of the test already stated by the apex court in their decisions. It appears from a decision Chaudhury Iron Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal reported in : [1974] 34 STC 21 (Cal), the rule -making power which has been given to the State Government to make Rules under the Act in question, under Section 114 of the VAT Act, the said Government may by a notification make Rules with prospective or retrospective effect for carrying out the purposes of the Act in question. Now let us see the motive of the legislators for enacting the value added tax which would be amply dear from the Act in question and it appears from the objects and reasons which has to be sought to be raised before us by the learned Counsel has been specifically stated that "whereas it is expedient to provide for the levy of tax on sale of goods in West Bengal on the basis of value added to such goods at each stage of sale of such goods on purchases of certain goods in West Bengal in specified circumstances and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto".;