9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Posta Bazar, Burtola Charge, Salt Lake, Kolkata dated 30th November, 2021 on an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration under the WBGST Act, 2017. The appellate authority after examining certain facts came to the conclusion that the appellant did not carry any business from the declared place and the documents filed by the appellant in support of the same are not correct and accordingly, affirmed the cancellation of the registration made under Section 29(2)(e) of the Act read with Rule 21 of the relevant Rules. 2. The learned single Bench by the impugned order held that the issues raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the matter. 6. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that though the learned Writ Court had briefly noted the factual position, the legal issue, which had been canvassed by the appellant before us has not been considered. The legal issue, which us canvassed before us is on the following grounds. 7. The appellant was granted registration under the provisions of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 dated 27th August, 2013. The appellant has been enjoying the benefit of such registration ever since 2013. After coming into force of the WBGST Act, the licence migrated under the new provisions. On 10th September, 2018, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Deputy Commissioner of GST calling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of cancellation was passed. The appellant had filed an application for revocation of such order, which was favourably considered and the registration was restored by order dated 4th January, 2021 and having done so, the authority cannot once again issue another show cause notice for the same set of facts. 10. In our considered view, this legal issue can be left open for the present as we are satisfied that the procedure adopted by the authority while cancelling the registration was thoroughly flawed. Admittedly, when an inspection was conducted by the officers of the department, one of the person, who represented to be the receptionist of the building affirmed that one Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, who was the power of attorney agent of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner, respondent no.3 and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry. As a result of the same, the order dated 17th March, 2021 directing rejection of application for revocation of cancellation is also set aside and the said application is restored to the file of the first respondent for conducting fresh enquiry. 12. The first respondent is directed to issue notice to the proprietor of the appellant, Mr. Rohit Varma, his power of attorney agent, Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal and the landlord of the premises in which the appellant is stated to have been carrying on business. The parties shall be directed to appear in person before the first respondent on 20th June, 2022 at 11.00 A.M. in the office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
