2015 (9) TMI 97 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of Registration certificate After issuing notice, registration of assesse under VAT Act was cancelled by assessing officer on ground that firm is not in existence Assessing officer proceeded only on basis that goods are not stored at address given in registration certificate Held that - fact remains that Act never requires that goods are required to be stored at place of registration whereas Act contemplates that dealer need not stores goods at place from where he carries on business Tribunal concluded that conclusion of assessing officer that business of revisionist is not in existence based only on informations said to have been collected from unidentified persons that premises remains closed, was unjust and not sustainable further that no case of cancellation, had been made out and, was not also attempted to be established or established View taken by tribunal was just and needs no interference Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of registration under the VAT Act based on non-existence of the firm.
2. Interpretation of the grounds for cancellation under section 18 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
3. Definition of "place of business" under section 2(28) of the Act.
4. Judicial review of assessing officer's decision by appellate authority and Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the cancellation of registration under the VAT Act due to the non-existence of the firm. The assessing officer cancelled the registration on the basis that the firm was not in existence, as the goods were not stored at the address mentioned in the registration certificate. However, the Act does not mandate that goods must be stored at the registered address. The definition of "place of business" in section 2(28) of the Act includes any place where a dealer carries on business, indicating that storing goods at the registered address is not a requirement.

2. The judgment interprets the grounds for cancellation of registration as provided in section 18 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. It highlights that the assessing officer did not mention any specific ground from section 18 in the notice for cancellation. The Tribunal concluded that the assessing officer's decision, based on information from unidentified persons that the premises were closed, was unjust and not sustainable. The Tribunal found that no case for cancellation under section 18 had been made out or established.

3. The judgment clarifies the definition of "place of business" under section 2(28) of the Act, emphasizing that a dealer is not required to store goods at the place from where business is conducted. This interpretation is crucial in understanding the legal requirements for registration and operation under the VAT Act.

4. The judicial review of the assessing officer's decision was conducted by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the appellate authority and the assessing officer, as it found the grounds for cancellation insufficient and unjust. The judgment affirms the Tribunal's decision, stating that there is no reason to deviate from its findings. Ultimately, the revision was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's decision.