9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continued more than a month after it was initiated - sealing the premises of the petitioner is set aside. Cancellation of petitioner's registration - case of petitioner is that no notice was served to the petitioner before this order was passed - Held that: - the petitioner was not served with any notice of proposed cancellation of registration before such action was taken by the authority under order dated 27.06.2017. If the notice dated 23.03.2017 was not served and the notice dated 12.06.2017 of the hearing dated 19.06.2017 was served after the date had passed, clearly the petitioner had no opportunity to appear before the authority and to defend its position - even otherwise, the order of cancellation of registration suffers from leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT Act and the CST Act with effect from 22.06.2010. This order the petitioner has challenged, inter alia, on the grounds of no notice, no hearing and retrospective cancellation without any material on record. 3. We may consider the petitioner's two challenges on the basis of materials on record. With respect to the order dated 27.06.2017 sealing the business premises of the petitioner firm, counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the VAT Act, there is no power for sealing the premises. Before its amendment, vide Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 of the VAT Act contained such powers, however, legislature by the said amendment, has consciously removed such powers. If the authorities desired to inspect or even seize the accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised officer in the discharge of his duties under this section. 5. However, by Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 was substituted from the original, in which, these powers are completely missing. Thus the legislature while reenacting section 67 consciously omitted the powers of the Commissioner for sealing such premises. The action of the authority to do so under its order dated 27.06.2017 was therefore illegal. We are unable to see from the order or even otherwise that the said action was taken as a part of an ongoing search. There is nothing in this order suggesting that the seal was put temporarily so that the search can be resumed after the brief break. Even otherwise, according to the respondents, the business premises do not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntroverted either of these two factual assertions. In other words, the respondents are unable to show any evidence of service of the first notice dated 23.03.2017 or of service of second notice dated 12.06.2017 before 19.06.2017 i.e. the date of hearing. 9. Under the circumstances, it becomes clear that the petitioner was not served with any notice of proposed cancellation of registration before such action was taken by the authority under order dated 27.06.2017. If the notice dated 23.03.2017 was not served and the notice dated 12.06.2017 of the hearing dated 19.06.2017 was served after the date had passed, clearly the petitioner had no opportunity to appear before the authority and to defend its position. 10. Quite apart from non se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
