9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited company established in the year 1977 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling of tea. The petitioner entered into a lease agreement with three persons namely, Mr. Jayachandran, Mr. Sadhiq and Mr.Sathyamoorthy and those persons are said to have registered with the Central Excise Authorities in Sr. No.7/96 dated 02.12.1996 bearing ECC Code 2586010984. Abruptly, those lessees abandoned the factory and so the petitioner was unable to run the business and the whereabouts of the lessees were not known. Therefore, with a view to commence business activities, the petitioner submitted an application 22.07.2009 for registration in Form A-1. The said application was not processed and therefore the petitioner had sent a representat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant registration on the plea that previous licensee has not applied for de-registration and in the absence of specific power to deny registration. Further, learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & anr. vs. Shreyas Papers P. Ltd. & Ors., reported in CDJ 2006 SC 086, for the real meaning of 'business' and 'ownership of business' as provided under section 15 (1) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Further learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Jagajothi Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli reported in 2011 (268) ELT 164 (Mad), stating that only if there is transfer of business or trade whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that without surrendering the previous Registration Certificate and without effecting payment of arrears, the question of issue of fresh Registration Certificate would not arise. In this regard, records were produced to show that an Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2005 has been passed in the name of the company, wherein an amount of Rs. 8,35,829/- has been claimed as basic excise duty apart from claim of cess and penalty. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, the following points arise for consideration. Firstly, whether the respondent is justified in passing the impugned order to clear the dues of the predecessor without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to be allowed. In the light of the above, the second question need not be gone into since that would require examination of the facts and this should be done by the second respondent after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings is quashed and the respondent is directed to issue a show cause notice clearly stating as to the names under which registration was granted and how the respondent is claiming the sales tax dues alleged to have been defaulted by the lessees and on receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner is entitled to submit his reply, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the respondent shall pass o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
