9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion certificate under Section 27 of the Act, more particularly, Section 27(5) of the Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - TAX APPEAL NO. 87 of 2017, AND TAX APPEAL NO. 88 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 9-6-2017 - MR. M.R. SHAH, AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. For The Appellant : MR TUSHAR P HEMANI, ADVOCATE For The Appellant : MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH, ADVOCATE CAV JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Draft amendment is allowed. 2.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 29.03.2016 passed in Second Appeal Nos.1099 of 2016 and 1100 of 2016, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the orders passed by the authorities below cancelling the registration of the appellant dealer, the appellant dealer has preferred the present Tax Appeals with the following proposed questions of law: A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in conforming the cancellation of the registration certificates of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was right in law in exceeding its appellate jurisdiction by enhancing the scope of the appeal and deciding the issues which were not considered by the lower authorities? 3.0. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the appellant is a proprietary concern, engaged in the business of Reselling nonferrous metals as well as iron and steel commodities. That the appellant was registered as a dealer under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 w.e.f. 9.4.2007. That the appellant dealer failed to file the return from 1.10.2011 to 30.06.2013. That thereafter, the appellant had also made an application in form no. 103 on 5.4.2014 seeking cancellation of the registration certificate. It appears that prior thereto, by order dated 11.03.2013 Commercial Tax Department passed order of cancellation of the registration certificate of the appellant on failure to furnish to file the return for the period from 1.10.2011 to 30.06.2013. That thereafter, the appellant filed return manually upto 30.06.2013 on payment of ₹ 2000/by way of penalty. It appears that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lantdealer that learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that appellant had filed its return regularly upto the period 30.09.2011. However, thereafter due to ill health of the parents of the appellant who were staying at Mumbai, the appellant has closed its business activities and vacated its residential premises in Ahmedabad and had shifted to Mumbai. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that even the Accountant of the appellant had also left the job and therefore, due to this, appellant could not file returns from 1.10.2011 to 30.06.2013. 4.3. It is further submitted by Shri Tushar Hemani, learned advocate for the appellantdealer that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that even thereafter the appellant had also made an application in the form no. 103 on 5.4.2013 seeking cancellation of its registration certificates. 4.4. It is further submitted by Shri Tushar Hemani, learned advocate for the appellantdealer that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that appellant thereafter filed all the returns manually upto 30.06.2013 and has also discharged its liabilities as per the returns filed. 4.5. It is further submitted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the same is not speaking order, as contended on behalf of appellant. 5.3. Now, so far as submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has widening the scope of appeal before it and has confirmed the order altogether on other ground is concerned, it is submitted that what is observed by the learned Tribunal on remand report is in furtherance of the reasoning given by the learned Tribunal while confirming the order cancelling the registration of the appellant. It is submitted that therefore, the aforesaid can be said to be additional ground over and above and the ground on which the original and earlier registration of the certificates were cancelled. Making above submission, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeals. 6.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 6.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Commercial Tax Officer cancelled the registration certificates of the appellant herein dealer in exercise of powers under Section 27(5) of the Gujarat VAT Act and on the ground that for three consecutive period i.e. for the period between 1.10.2011 to 30.06.2013, the dealer failed to file the returns. Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e closed the office at the premises, for which, intimation was given. However, it appears that same seems to be an afterthought. Firstly, the dealer did not intimate the department with respect to change of address. Even notice which was sent through RPAD, was returned. There are number of transactions during the period for which, the dealer did not file the returns and more particularly, to the extent of ₹ 1,54,48,577/. Therefore, the dealer suppressed the aforesaid transactions, more particularly, by not filing the returns. Merely because, subsequently the dealer submitted the returns which were accepted with penalty, it will not affect the powers of the authority to cancel the registration certificate under Section 27 of the Act, more particularly, Section 27(5) of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. Under the circumstances, both these appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No substantial question of law arise as contended on behalf of the appellant. 7.0. Under the circumstances, both these appeals are deserve to be dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
