2020 (2) TMI 298 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Restoration of lump sum cancellation order - permission of composition of tax - Section 14D read with Rule 28(C)(7) of Gujarat VAT Act - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion by quashing and setting aside the order of cancellation of the permission of composition of tax and restoring the matter to the Cancelling Officer with a liberty to take appropriate decision as per law regarding permission for composition after the appellant authority finally decide the liability and the case of the assement for the year 2016-2017-2018 under the VAT Act, 2003. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 14D of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 regarding cancellation of composition permission.
2. Validity of retrospective cancellation of composition permission.
3. Consideration of suppressed sales in assessment and cancellation of composition permission.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Tax Appeal was filed challenging the order of cancellation of composition permission under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003. The Tribunal held that the cancellation with retrospective effect, before deciding on suppression of sales, was unfair and not legally sound. The Tribunal noted the appellant's cooperation during assessment proceedings and the substantial payment made before any order was passed. The Tribunal remanded the case to the First Appellate Authority for a decision on merits, emphasizing that the cancellation of composition permission should be considered after assessing the liability.

2. The Tribunal observed that cancelling the composition permission before assessing suppressed sales would unfairly impact the dealer financially. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's payment on alleged suppressed sales, without a formal direction, indicated cooperation. The Tribunal emphasized that allowing the cancellation to influence the assessment decision was unjust. The Tribunal concluded that directing the Cancelling Officer to decide on composition permission after assessing liability would not negatively affect revenue.

3. The Tribunal allowed the Second Appeal by quashing the cancellation order and restoring the composition permission. The Tribunal directed the Cancelling Officer to make a decision on composition permission after assessing the appellant's liability for the relevant period. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the judgment. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings and concluded that the cancellation order was rightly set aside, emphasizing the importance of assessing liability before canceling composition permission.