9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the petitioner, therefore, the registrations were being cancelled. 4.. The petitioner is a firm which carries on business, inter alia, in iron and steel building materials and stone grits, etc. At the time when registration was obtained both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act the petitioner was required to give a bank guarantee of Rs. 15,000 which was admittedly furnished. A notice purporting to be under section 8-C of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was served upon the petitioner demanding additional security of Rs. 2,00,000 by January 30, 1996, failing which the notice stated that proceedings for the cancellation of the registration will be taken. It may be observed that no reasons have been indicated in the said noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not appear on the date fixed in the show cause notice and the additional security of rupees two lacs was not furnished. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that the interim order passed by this Court was not placed before the respondent although the case of the petitioner is that the said order was duly brought to the notice of the respondent and he proceeded to pass the impugned order in violation of the interim order. 6.. Sub-section (2) of section 8-C contemplates as under: (2) Where it appears necessary to the assessing authority so to do- (a) for the proper realisation of any tax, penalty or other sums due or payable under this Act; or (b) for the proper custody or use of forms prescribed under this Act or the Rules fra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required to be furnished. 8.. It is pertinent to observe that notice issued under sub-section (2) of section 8-C dated January 19, 1996, straightaway required the petitioner to give additional security of Rs. 2,00,000 without requiring the petitioner to show cause as contemplated in sub-section (3) of section 8-C. The notice also as observed earlier does not disclose any reason on account of which the petitioner was called upon to furnish the additional security. However, as stated earlier, the petitioner had objected to the demand of additional security and thus it was incumbent on the part of the respondent to pass appropriate orders dealing with the objections of the petitioner. However, it appears no such order was passed. At least ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t complying with the mandatory requirement of the provisions of the Act to which reference has already been made. The cancellation of the registration has a serious consequence in continuing the business of a dealer and such an order cannot be permitted to be passed unless the due procedure provided under the Act is adopted by the assessing authority. 10.. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders cancelling the registration of the petitioner are quashed. However, it will be open to the assessing authority to proceed afresh, if considered necessary and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Writ petition allowed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
