9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealers. In effect, it is a non-speaking order and it is impossible to discern what reasons weighed with the VATO while issuing such an order. Orders set aside - The proceedings emanating from the notice dated 29th December, 2014 issued under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act revived before the VATO concerned. - Matter remanded back. - W.P.(C) 7434/2015 & CM No. 13724/2015 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2016 - S.MURALIDHAR VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ. For The Appellant:- Mr Rajesh Jain, Mr Virag Tiwari and Mr K.J. Bhat, Advocates. For The Respondent:- Mr Avtar Singh, Advocate. ORDER 1. The challenge in this writ petition by Progressive Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd., a dealer registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax, 2004 ( DVAT Act ), is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Petitioner under Section 86(14) of the DVAT Act. 4. Another aspect is the cancellation of the Petitioner s registration by an order dated 5th January, 2015. In what appears to be yet another error by the Respondent, both the show cause notice in respect of the said cancellation as well as the order of cancellation of registration were issued on the same date i.e. 5th January, 2015. The cancellation was proposed from the date of registration of the Petitioner as a dealer i.e. 15th December, 2011. Clearly, the Petitioner could not have been expected to answer the show cause notice on the very date in which it was issued and in any event the order cancelling registration could not have been effected on that date itself, without waitin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that registration certificate of both GSA and OSC have been cancelled by the DT T and neither of these entities has sought a revival of their respective registration certificates. It is further stated that since the Petitioner had chosen not to respond to the notices or to produce the relevant records, there was no option left with the VATO but to proceed and pass the impugned order of default assessment of tax interest and penalty dated 9th March, 2015. 7. In response to the query as to the subsequent notice dated 19th June, 2015 issued by the Respondent under Section 59(2) in respect of the very same period, i.e. third quarter of 2013, for the purchases made from GSA and OSC and the consequential order passed on that very date, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued under Section 59(2) of the DVAT Act). 10. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the reference in the penalty notices and the orders dated 9th March and 19th June 2015 levying penalty referred to Section 86 (9) and Section 86 (11) of the DVAT Act neither of which provision applied in the instant case. It is finally submitted that the order dated 9th March 2015 under Section 32 of the DVAT Act has been passed without indicating the reasons for concluding that the purchases in question for the third quarter of 2013 have been made from bogus dealers. 11. A perusal of the order dated 9th March, 2015 of the DVAT Act reveals that it is another machine generated order. The said order fails to note what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d quarter of the financial year 2013-14 produced before the Court shows that the very purchase transactions involving GSA and OSC had a corresponding match and this has been verified by the computerized system. In other words, in respect of the same purchase transaction, the Annexure-2A Form produced by the purchaser has matched the Annexure-2B Form produced by the seller and the system has verified the match. It is inconceivable that on the one hand the system verifies the match in respect of purchase transactions and, on the other hand, the DT T treats those very transactions as having been made from 'bogus/suspicious' dealers whose registrations have been cancelled. Where the registration of a dealer has been cancelled for whatev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he VATO in respect of the third quarter of 2013 under Sections 32 and 33 of the DVAT Act and the notices of penalty dated 16th December, 2014. 16. The proceedings emanating from the notice dated 29th December, 2014 issued under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act is revived before the VATO concerned. The DT T will furnish to the Petitioner all the materials it has gathered which led to the issuance of the above notice within a period of two weeks from today. The Petitioner will furnish a written reply to the notice within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The VATO will then give a hearing to the Petitioner and pass an order afresh in respect of the above notice in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the previous orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
