9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a view to escape blame for her illegal acts, we consider it appropriate to impose exemplary costs quantified as ₹ 5,000 which the first respondent shall pay from her pocket to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Writ petition is allowed with exemplary costs - Writ Petition No. 32140 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2011 - RAO V.V.S. AND RAMESH RANGANATHAN JJ. Bhaskar Reddy Vemireddyfor the petitioner A.V. Krishna Koundinyafor the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 None appeared for respondent No. 3 ORDER The order of the first respondent dated July 26, 2010, cancelling the VAT registration granted earlier to the petitioner, and her failure to issue way bills, is under challenge in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner, a partnership-firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of PVC pipes, is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ). They purchased a sick unit, hitherto owned by the third respondent, in a public auction conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated October 13, 2009, had held that the plant and machinery was handed over on October 5, 2009, to the successful bidder in the auction conducted as per the notification dated June 11, 2009, but had observed that, since the petitioner's counsel was disputing handing over of possession to third parties, possession shall not be handed over for a period of one week, if possession in fact had not been handed over ; and subsequently, on a vacate stay petition being filed by the APSFC, this court, by order dated February 25, 2010, had directed the parties to maintain status quo as on February 25, 2010. The petitioner would submit that W. P. No. 25329 of 2009 was filed by the third respondent challenging the notice issued by APSFC dated November 12, 2009 demanding ₹ 113.22 lakhs ; initially this court granted interim stay subject to the condition that ₹ 35 lakhs was deposited ; and, as the third respondent had failed to deposit the said amount, the stay granted earlier was vacated. W. P. M. P. No. 6397 of 2009 filed subsequently was also rejected, by order dated March 11, 2010, on the ground that the prayer sought therein was beyond the scope of the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion seeking registration would be of little consequence. It is, however, necessary to note that a reference is made therein to the copy of the show-cause notice, copy of the cancellation order, copies of the registered envelopes which the first respondent states had been returned unserved by the postal authorities. The petitioner would contest the averment of the first respondent that the notice proposing cancellation in form 125 dated May 19, 2010 was sent to them by RPAD on May 19, 2010 itself. According to the petitioner the covers and documents, submitted along with the counter-affidavit, do not show any such notice having been sent by RPAD on May 19, 2010 ; both the registered envelopes, alleged to contain the show-cause notice dated May 19, 2010 and the cancellation order dated July 26, 2010, were sent only on August 9, 2010 which established that, despite the mandate of section 19 of the Act, they were not put on notice before the certificate of registration was cancelled ; the first respondent's averment on oath that the notice dated May 19, 2010 was sent by RPAD was not only false, but was also an attempt to mislead this court ; these false averments on oath amounted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the show-cause notice was sent by RPAD and then taking a U turn to submit, in the additional counter-affidavit, that the show-cause notice was sent by certificate of posting, is suspect. We are, prima facie, of the view that the several contradictions, in the counter-affidavit vis-a-vis the additional counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, reflect her endeavour to mislead this court, and to avoid being proceeded against for perjury. We had therefore, by order dated January 25, 2011, directed appearance of the first respondent, and for production of the file relating to the cancellation order. However the relevant records, including the despatch register, were not produced. Section 19(2) of the Act enables the prescribed authority, for good and sufficient reason, to cancel, modify or amend any certificate of registration issued by him, provided that no order shall be passed thereunder without giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The statutory prescription of section 19(2) of the Act is that the dealer should first be put on notice, be given an opportunity of being heard, and only thereafter is the prescribed authority entitled to cancel r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
