9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions of law and facts arise in both the tax appeals, both these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 25.7.2013 passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereafter referred to as the learned Tribunal ) passed in Second Appeal Nos.500 of 2010 and 501 of 2010, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the common appellant herein, the common appellant herein has preferred the present tax appeals to consider the following questions of law. (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in interpreting and construing provisions of section 27(5)(i) of the Act? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not strictly and literally interpreting the provisions u/s 27(5) (i) of the Act in accordance with the rules of interpretation which specifically states that a taxing statute has to be strictly and literally construed? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not finding that the Authority or DCCT has no power or jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the purchaser (deale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be cancelled ab initio. It appears that the appellant appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax and produced the document on 21.1.2010. That the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax issued a communication dated 5.2.2010 calling upon the appellant to clarify the points mentioned in the said communication. That the appellant vide communication dated 22.2.2010 submitted pointwise clarification as asked for by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax. That thereafter, straightway, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax vide order dated 26.2.2010 had cancelled the registration certification of the appellant ab initio under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act (GST Act) and Central Sales Tax (CST Act) 3.3 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax cancelling the registration certificate of the appellant ab initio, the appellant preferred appeals before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority by judgment and order dated 27.4.2010, dismissed the said appeals by observing that the appellant had shown purchases from one Sheth Metal Private Limited for the period between 28. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice was issued. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to the communications annexed at Annexure A collectively and has contended that the aforesaid communications were merely in the nature of requiring the appellant to produce the document and information. It is submitted that these communications were followed by another communication dated 5.2.2010, under which, the appellant was required to examine certain adverse allegations. It is submitted that however, there was no proposal that on the basis of such allegations being established, the registration certification of the appellant was liable to be cancelled. It is submitted that therefore, the entire action of cancelling the registration of the appellant has been taken without any show cause notice as required under section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act. It is submitted that therefore, as such, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax - first authority cancelling the registration certificate of the appellant ab initio is absolutely illegal against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the VAT Act, more particularly, section 27(5)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant ab initio in purported exercise of the powers under section 27 of the VAT Act. It appears that however, prior to cancellation of the registration certificate ab initio, no show cause notice had been issued and served upon the appellant calling upon the appellant to show cause why the registration certificate of the appellant be not cancelled ab initio. Considering the provisions of section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act and even it is cardinal principles of law that before passing any adverse order having civil consequences, opportunity of hearing is required to be given. From the earlier notice, it appears that the appellant was simply called upon to produce certain documents and even to explain the discrepancies. However, at no point of time, the appellant was called upon and/or informed that on the basis of the aforesaid inquiry and/or discrepancies, if any, the registration certificate of the appellant is required to be cancelled ab initio. Even, section 27(5)(i) of the Act provides that before cancelling the registration certificate ab initio, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned person whose registration certificate is sought to be can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal in Second Appeal Nos.500 of 2010 and 501 of 2010 as well as the order passed by the first authority cancelling the registration certificate of the appellant ab initio and even the order passed by the first appellate authority are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the first authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. As agreed, the order passed by the first authority cancelling the registration certificate ab initio and the order passed by the first appellate authority be considered as show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why the registration certificate of the appellant may not be cancelled ab initio in exercise of powers under section 27 of the Act. Now, the appellant to reply to the aforesaid show cause notice before appropriate authority within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter, the appropriate authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits under section 27(5) of the Act after giving an opportunity to the appellant and in light of the observations mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
