Registration under UP VAT Act Subsisting on Day of Death of Registered Dealer, Family would be entitled to Insurance Claim under Group Insurance Policy: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court ruled that when registration under Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act (UP VAT Act), 2008 subsisting on day of death of Registered Dealer, family would be entitled to insurance claim under Group Insurance Policy.

Primarily, relief sought by the petitioner, Rina Rani Rustogi, is against the State-respondents. Unless the State-respondents were to issue the necessary Biometric form-II under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, the occasion would not arise to the Insurance Company to consider the claim for insurance money being paid to the petitioner. Accordingly, we have proceeded with the matter.

The husband of the present petitioner, Ajay Rastogi died in a road accident on 09.10.2013. Claiming that the deceased was a registered dealer under the Act and that his registration was continuing on the date of his death, the present petitioner claims payment of insurance money, Rs. 5,00,000/- to her in terms of the Group Insurance Policy purchased by the State Government for the benefit of such registered dealer, under the Circular dated 30.03.2013 issued by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax.

According to the petitioner, it is that cancellation of registration that came to be posted on the website of the revenue authorities on 24.12.2013. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the registration granted to the deceased remained valid from 21.02.2006 to 24.12.2013. Thus, the terms of the Circular prevailing and the terms of the Group Insurance Policy are stated to be satisfied inasmuch as the deceased was a registered dealer on the date of occurrence of his death.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application being referred to dated 18.03.2013 was with respect to certain additions to the registration that were sought by her husband, which request came to be withdrawn. That would never have the effect of cancellation of the pre-existing registration. Rather, it would be confined to rejection of the claim for additional commodities for which registration may have been sought.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Surendra Singh-I observed that “Prima facie, the stand taken by the petitioner appears to be correct. It also appears that the respondent-authorities have misdirected themselves in not looking at the application dated 18.03.2013 without considering the fact of the pre-existing registration, that stood in the name of the deceased. If the deceased held a registration certificate prior to the occurrence of his death and that registration did not stand cancelled on the date of occurrence of his death, the status of the deceased would remain to be of a registered dealer for the purpose of Group Insurance Policy.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates