9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication No. 15359 of 2014 , Special Civil Application No. 15360 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2015 - M. R. Shah And S. H. Vora, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Manish K Kaji, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr Chintan Dave, AGP ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1.00. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions and with respect to the same dealer but with respect to registration certificates under VAT Act as well as CST Act, both these petitions are heard, decided and disposed of by this common order. 2.00. That the common petitioner - dealer was having registration certificate under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the VAT Act for convenience) as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act for short). That the said registrations wee obtained for trading and selling coconut, food-grains, pulses, grocery, tea, sugar, etc. at Botad in Bhavnagar District. The petitioner dealer was holding the said registration certificates from 1/7/2002 under the GST Act / VAT Act and from 1/7/ 2002 under the CST Act. 2.01. That after a period of one year, on 22/7/2003, the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal ). 2.08. That in the meantime, since the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions of providing security, the registration came to be cancelled by order dated 16/4/2010. 2.09. That against the order passed by the first authority, confirming the order passed by the CAT Authority, passed under section 28(2) of the VAT Act, directing the petitioner to furnish security of ₹ 10 Lacs, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned tribunal. 2.10. That the learned tribunal dismissed the said appeals, against which the petitioner preferred appeals before this Court being Tax Appeal Nos.14 and 46 of 2014. That in the meantime, after following due procedure as required and after giving opportunity to the petitioner - dealer, the concerned authority under the VAT Act cancelled the registrations, both under the VAT Act as well as CST Act abinitio, by order dated 21/4/2010. 2.11. That the aforesaid Tax Appeal Nos.14 and 46 of 2014 came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench vide order dated 21/3/2014 disposed of the aforesaid Tax Appeals, modifying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03. Mr.Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer has further submitted that at the time when the petitioner purchased the goods from the aforesaid two parties, both of them were having registration certificates and both of them were registered dealers and therefore, if subsequently their registration certificates have been cancelled ab-initio with retrospective effect, merely on that ground, the purchases made by the petitioner from the said two dealers cannot be doubted and it cannot be said that the petitioner has also indulged into billing activities only. It is submitted that on the aforesaid ground registration certificates of the petitioner cannot be cancelled ab-initio. 3.05. In support of his above submissions, Mr.Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Trading Company, reported in 1998 (Vol.109) Sales Tax Cases 439 as well as decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Giriraj Sales Corporation Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in (2002) (Vol.125) Sales Tax Cases 369. 3.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have made purchases. 4.01. Mr.Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat has further submitted that even the petitioner - dealer had made purchases of ₹ 104.19 Lacs in the year 2007-2008 from M/s. Vishal Traders after its registration were cancelled on 1/4/2007 and said transactions were through the Bank at Surat and the petitioner did not disclose his Bank Account at Surat and only Bank Account at Botad was declared / disclosed in which there was no transaction shown. It is submitted that, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such the orders cancelling the registration certificates ab-initio cannot be said to be illegal and/or erroneous. 4.02. Mr.Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, none of the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall be of any assistance to the petitioner dealer. By making above submissions, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner dealer under the VAT Act as well as CST Act ab-initio. 5.03. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the registration certificates of the petitioner dealer under the VAT Act as well as CST Act are rightly cancelled ab-initio, more particularly when the petitioner dealer has indulged into billing activities only of ₹ 104.19 Lacs from M/s. Vishal Traders and has indulged into billing activities only of ₹ 13,08,778/- from M/s. Shiv Enterprise, whose registrations were cancelled ab-initio and despite having knowledge that the registration certificates of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise have been cancelled ab-initio, the petitioner has shown purchases from the aforesaid M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise and had obtained / issued invoices and those transactions and purchases are found to be bogus and not genuine. 5.04. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that as the copies of the statements of the proprietor of M/s. Vishal Traders, upon which reliance has been placed by the department, has not been supplied / issued to the petitioner, the order cancelling the registration certificates is in breach of the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
