2017 (6) TMI 658 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of Registration Certificate - failure to furnish the return for three consecutive period from 1.10.2011 to 30.06.2013 - Section 27(5) of the Gujarat VAT Act - Held that - The ground which was given by the appellant dealer for not filing returns for the aforesaid period was due to his father ill health he was required to go to Mumbai and he was required to shift to Mumbai and therefore, he closed the office at the premises, for which, intimation was given. However, it appears that same seems to be an afterthought. The dealer did not intimate the department with respect to change of address. Even notice which was sent through RPAD, was returned. There are number of transactions during the period for which, the dealer did not file the returns and more particularly, to the extent of ₹ 1,54,48,577/. Therefore, the dealer suppressed the aforesaid transactions, more particularly, by not filing the returns. Merely because, subsequently the dealer submitted the returns which were accepted with penalty, it will not affect the powers of the authority to cancel the registration certificate under Section 27 of the Act, more particularly, Section 27(5) of the Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the cancellation of the registration certificates for non-filing of returns for three consecutive periods.
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in cancelling the registration certificates despite the appellant having filed its returns up to 30.06.2013.
3. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the cancellation orders under Section 27(5) of the GVAT Act.
4. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to Input Tax Credit under Section 11 of the GVAT Act due to obtaining tax invoices without transactions.
5. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider documentary evidence and arguments presented by the appellant and whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by widening the scope of the appeal and deciding on issues not considered by the lower authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns:
The Tribunal confirmed the cancellation of the appellant's registration certificates under Section 27(5) of the Gujarat VAT Act due to the appellant's failure to file returns for the periods between 1.10.2011 to 30.06.2013. The appellant argued that the returns were eventually filed manually and penalties were paid. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant's subsequent compliance did not negate the authority's power to cancel the registration for the initial non-compliance.

2. Filing of Returns Up to 30.06.2013:
The appellant contended that it had filed its returns up to 30.06.2013 and argued that the cancellation was unjustified. The Tribunal, however, noted that the returns were filed only after the cancellation order and payment of penalties, which did not absolve the appellant from the initial failure to comply with the filing requirements.

3. Upheld Cancellation Under Section 27(5) of GVAT Act:
The Tribunal upheld the cancellation under Section 27(5) of the GVAT Act, which allows for cancellation if a dealer fails to file three consecutive returns. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not file returns for the specified periods and that the reasons provided by the appellant, such as the ill health of the appellant's parents and the appellant's relocation to Mumbai, were not sufficient to excuse the non-compliance.

4. Input Tax Credit Entitlement:
The Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to Input Tax Credit under Section 11 of the GVAT Act because the appellant had obtained tax invoices without actual transactions. This finding was based on the evidence that the appellant had merely obtained invoices from vendors without engaging in genuine transactions.

5. Consideration of Documentary Evidence and Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider documentary evidence and did not address the arguments and submissions made by the appellant, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, however, found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claims and that the lower authorities had acted within their jurisdiction.

6. Scope of Appeal and Jurisdiction:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by considering new grounds not addressed by the lower authorities. The Tribunal acknowledged that it had considered additional grounds, such as the appellant's failure to pay the tax demand for the assessment period 2009-10, but justified this by stating that these were in furtherance of the original reasoning for cancellation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the cancellation of the registration certificates. The Tribunal found no substantial question of law and held that the appellant's subsequent compliance did not negate the initial non-compliance. The Tribunal also justified its consideration of additional grounds and found no violation of natural justice. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.

← Previous Next →