9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 427 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCancellation of registrations - TNVAT Act - The Joint Commissioner hold that the second respondent Mr.Nirmal Kumar Bohra, has obtained registration showing himself as proprietor of M/s.B.S.Silver Emporium by submitting manipulated documents to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Peddunaickenpet Assessment Circle - Held that - the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to putforth their contentions. Infact, copy of the impugned order has not been communicated to the petitioner and he has obtained the same under the Right to Information Act. The first respondent has set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai North Division, dated 19.11.2015 - The cancellation of the registration by the Assistant Commissioner was at the instance of the petitioner herein. When the Joint Commissioner heard R.P.No.69 of 2015, she had issued notice to the petitioner herein, heard the second respondent and the petitioner herein and by a detailed and speaking order, dismissed the Revision Petition. Copy of the order, dated 19.11.2015, in R.P.No.69 of 2015, has been communicated to the petitioner. Challenging the said order dated 19.11.2015, further revision was filed by the second respondent before the first respondent. Thus, the elementary principle that should have been followed by the first respondent is to issue notice to the second respondent,(the revision petitioner) as well as the petitioner herein, who is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. The matter is to be remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration, then the registration certificate issued to the second respondent should not be cancelled in the interregnum - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to order cancelling registration under TNVAT Act and CST Act; Lack of opportunity to petitioner; Hasty disposal of revision petition. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Order Cancelling Registration: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the first respondent, which upheld the cancellation of registration granted to the second respondent under the TNVAT Act and CST Act. The Joint Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition filed by the second respondent, leading to further appeals. The High Court observed discrepancies in the registration process, including allegations of forged documents and manipulated information. The Court emphasized the need for proper notice to all parties involved in such proceedings to ensure fairness and due process. 2. Lack of Opportunity to Petitioner: The primary ground of challenge was the lack of opportunity afforded to the petitioner during the proceedings. The High Court noted that the petitioner was not given a chance to present their contentions and that the impugned order was passed without proper communication to the petitioner. The Court highlighted the importance of providing a fair hearing to all parties involved in legal disputes, emphasizing the right to be heard as a fundamental aspect of natural justice. 3. Hasty Disposal of Revision Petition: Another significant issue raised was the haste in disposing of the revision petition without giving adequate time for proper consideration and without serving notice to the petitioner. The Court criticized the quick turnaround in passing the impugned order and pointed out the need for a thorough and fair review process in such matters. The High Court directed the first respondent to conduct a fresh hearing, ensuring that both parties are given proper notice, opportunity to present their case, and a chance to respond to each other's submissions. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for a fresh decision. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process, providing opportunities for all parties to be heard, and conducting proceedings in a fair and transparent manner. The judgment underscored the principles of natural justice and the need for a thorough and unbiased review of legal disputes to ensure justice is served.
|
