9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f finally at this stage under second proviso to rule 2 of chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 2.. The opposite party/dealer obtained a registration with effect from January 5, 1993 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 as well as with effect from January 12, 1993 under the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1999-2000 opposite party/dealer was alleged to have imported the goods in contravention of the provisions of section 28-A of the "Act" and therefore, security demanded was deposited also for the assessment year 2001-02. The opposite party/ dealer was found to import of 160 bags of supari without genuine documents. Therefore, the goods were released against the security. In those cases the penalty had alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 2002 (annexure 6). In the second appeal learned Tribunal by order dated May 27, 2002 restored the registration granted in favour of the opposite party/dealer while allowing the second appeal (annexure 7). 3.. Learned Tribunal has observed that the registration of the opposite party/dealer has been cancelled on different grounds other than grounds mentioned in the notices for cancellation of registration and according to the learned counsel for the opposite party/dealer, notices mentioned are not in consonance to the provisions of the "Act" and as such no ground for cancellation of registration has been existing whereas learned Standing Counsel has vehemently persuaded and justified the stand of revenue and supported the judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereas the order of cancellation of registration have been made on different grounds. 7.. Learned counsel for the opposite party/dealer has placed reliance on [2000] 119 STC 331 (All); 1999 UPTC 1332 (Aditya Trading Company, Ghaziabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh) where it was held: "The petitioner is a registered dealer and has already furnished security as required under section 8-C(1) of the Act. By the impugned notice-cum-order, the petitioner has been directed to file additional security in the sum of Rs. 20 lacs in the form of a bank guarantee. Such an order could have been passed in terms of sub-section (2) of section 8-C where it appears necessary to do so for the proper realisation of any tax, penalty or other sums due or payabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
