9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ANKAJ MITHAL J. Nishant Mishra for the petitioner U.K. Pandey, Standing Counsel, for the respondent ORDER Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri U. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The revisionist is aggrieved by the order dated September 24, 2010 of cancellation of its registration passed under section 17(11) of the U. P. Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ) by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 13, Ghaziabad, appellate order thereof dated November 20, 2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade 2 (Appeal) 4, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad and the order of Tribunal thereto dated December 16, 2010. The revisionist c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of tax has ceased; or (b) on which the dealer has discontinued the business; or (c) of order of cancellation where:- (i) the dealer has obtained registration certificate by fraud or by mis-representation of facts; or (ii) the dealer has failed to furnish security or additional security, as the case may be; or (iii) the dealer has transferred any prescribed form of declaration or certificate obtained by him to any person against provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; or (iv) the dealer has permitted some other person to carry on business in his name; or (v) the dealer has issued any tax invoice to a dealer without making actual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses no loss to the revenue and such would not constitute sufficient cause for cancellation of registration. The other ground that the purchases shown from Jai Ambay Enterprises are bogus are not borne out from the record. In fact the said purchases have also been shown by the said firm in its return submitted to the Department as is evident from annexure No. 13 to the revision. Moreover, the ground that the purchases are bogus has not been dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal only records that the said firm from which the revisionist had made purchases was found to be involved in evasion of tax. Involvement of the said firm in tax evasion may not be attributed to the revisionist as there is no finding that the revisionist was in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons on which the cancellation of registration has been ordered would not even fall under its canopy as in all the above three events the revenue is not likely, to be affected or is shown to be affected. Accordingly, the question of law raised above is answered in favour of the revisionist and it is held that the grounds on which cancellation order has been passed are extraneous and are not covered by section 17(11)(c) of the Act not even within the meaning of sufficient cause as contained in section 17(11)(c)(ix) of the Act. In view of the above answer, the orders dated September 24, 2010 passed under section 17(11) of the U. P. VAT Act by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector 13, Ghaziabad, appellate order dated Novemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
