9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing any order adverse to the petitioner. In the present case, decision in the order in original passed by the Commissioner is rather brief, it only refers to nonparticipation of the petitioner in the proceedings and in the later portion proceeded to confirm the proposal of cancellation of registration on the premise that the petitioner had indulged in the bogus billing activities. There are fundamental flaws in the approach of the Commissioner. Firstly, as noted earlier, the petitioner had made representations in writing. Contentions raised in the petition were therefore required to be taken into account before the Commissioner could take any final decision. Secondly, without any discussion on material on record, even in an exparte pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere duly replied. On almost each date of hearing fixed by the Commissioner, the petitioner remained present and on several occasions also filed the written replies. 2. Despite this, the Commissioner passed his order in original dated 14.06.2011 cancelling the petitioner s registration both under the Gujarat Sales Tax as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. In such order, he principally noted that though the petitioner was served with various notices and given several opportunities to remain present, the petitioner, however, did not remain present on a single occasion. No request for adjournment was also made. The Commissioner, therefore, concluded that the allegations against the petitioner contained in the showcause notices are corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at all stages the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner. Though, the petitioner had remained present on each date of hearing and also filed replies, the Commissioner cancelled the registration noting that there was no response from the petitioner. The Commissioner did not even refer to the petitioner s replies and representations. Learned Counsel Shri Hemani further submits that though the Tribunal noted the petitioner s objections on this count, failed to record any finding. The Tribunal based reliance on its decision in case of Shah Enterprise , though, such judgment had been set aside by the High Court and proceedings were remanded for afresh consideration in the said case. 5. Learned AGP Shri Gandh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner had indulged in bogus billing activities leading to revenue loss of ₹ 51 lakhs. At least a brief discussion on material on record was necessary. 8. When these aspects were highlighted before the Tribunal by the petitioner, the Tribunal merely recorded such contentions without giving any findings with respect to the same. Such contentions require a decision. Revision petitions could not have been dismissed without finding on the petitioner s fundamental contention that the Commissioner had committed a gross violation of principles of natural justice. 9. For all these reasons, in our opinion, the issues require proper and fresh consideration at the hands of the Commissioner. For such purpose, the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
