2010 (7) TMI 1108 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer u/s 29(1)(a) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, regarding the cancellation of the Registration Certificate (RC) of the applicant.

Details of the judgment:
The applicant, a proprietor carrying on business under the trade name Arun Emporium, challenged the order dated April 23, 2010, which cancelled the RC under the VAT Act and the CST Act. The applicant claimed to be regularly carrying on business and submitting returns. The challenge was based on the contention that the cancellation was made without proper grounds and without allowing an opportunity to rebut the allegations.

The respondent, represented by the State, argued that the declared place of business was visited multiple times, and the applicant was not found there. The respondent issued a notice proposing the cancellation of the RC, which was returned by postal authorities due to the non-existence of the business at the declared address. The respondent contended that the applicant had the opportunity to respond and explain but failed to do so.

The court examined the pre-printed notice issued by the respondent and found that it clearly indicated the intention to take action u/s 29(1)(a) of the VAT Act. The court also noted that the applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity to appear and refute the allegations made against him. The court held that the respondent had provided a reasonable opportunity as required by the law.

Regarding the applicant's claim of regularly submitting returns, the court found that mere filing of returns does not establish that the business is being conducted from the declared place. The court highlighted the statutory requirements for maintaining a place of business and emphasized that compliance with these rules is essential. The court concluded that the orders challenged in the application should not be interfered with, and therefore, the application was dismissed.

In summary, the court upheld the cancellation of the Registration Certificate based on the non-existence of the business at the declared place, as evidenced by multiple visits where the applicant was not found. The court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory requirements and rejected the applicant's argument that merely submitting returns proves the business is operational at the declared place.