Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1997 (12) TMI 609

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). As required under section 22, sub-section (4), the petitioner was granted a registration certificate, pursuant to holding of an enquiry, as contemplated under this provision. After the issuance of the registration certificate in its favour by the Commercial Tax Officer, an Inspector had recorded the statement of the petitioner on February 25, 1997. The said statement recorded by the Inspector has been filed and is marked as annexure P-5. 3.. It appears, that on the statement so recorded, the Commercial Tax Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on May 27, 1997 on the following two grounds: (i) That the business is actually being carried on by Antil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioner had also not filed the requisite returns within the time prescribed under the law. Thus, under section 22 of the Act it cancelled the registration certificate granted to the petitioner. 5.. Feeling aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred a revision under section 62 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax and prayed for quashment of the said order. However, the revisional authority also did not agree to the contention as advanced by the petitioner and upheld the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. Consequently and in the result the petitioner s revision was also dismissed. The petitioner has now approached this Court for quashment of the aforesaid two orders. 6.. Show cause notice against admission was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . He further submitted that no definite finding has been recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to come to the conclusion that petitioner s uncle and grandfather are actually carrying on the business and not the petitioner, yet a drastic order has been passed for cancellation of petitioner s registration. 9.. It is the case of the petitioner that when no direct or indirect nexus between the petitioner and the defaulter of the sales tax has been established, it was not a fit case where the petitioner s registration should have been directed to be cancelled. According to him the petitioner had assigned valid reasons for filing of the show cause notice and dropping the proceedings, but for some extraneous consideration, which was not brought t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e defaulting party, clinching and substantial evidence was required to be collected by respondent No. 1 while holding an enquiry in this regard. 12.. After going through the impugned order it is also clearly made out that even the authority concerned has not come to a definite conclusion. The order appears to have been passed on conjectures and surmises. When a valuable right of the petitioner is being taken away inasmuch as he is deprived from carrying on his business on account of the cancellation of the registration, the authority should have been cautious and careful in arriving at a definite conclusion. Unfortunately even the revisional authority has committed the same mistake. From the perusal of the impugned orders, I find that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner pre-supposes that an enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid sub-section must have been conducted by the Commissioner and only thereafter the necessary certificate was issued. 14.. For the foregoing reasons I hereby quash annexure P-10 dated June 4, 1997 and annexure P-11 dated September 2, 1997 and remit the matter to respondent No. 1 to hold a fresh enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, if required and asked for, by the petitioner, to give an opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that the department shall also be given similar liberty for elaborating the facts. It is expected of respondent No. 1 to hold the fresh enquiry into the matter within a period of three (3) months hereof from th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates