9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the delegated powers of the Commissioner. That means, the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the powers of Commissioner under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act. Therefore, considering the provision of Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act, any application made to the Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner is to be treated as Revision and would be maintainable before the Tribunal only. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 27(5)(i) read with Section 75(1)(b) of the VAT Act is not maintainable in view of provision of Section 73 of the Act because, as per Section 73, an Appeal of every original order not being an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order dated 16th June, 2023 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short the Tribunal ) in Revision Application No. 59 of 2021, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Revision Application as not maintainable before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under. 3.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of cotton, cotton yarn etc duly registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the VAT Act ). 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that it has a manufacturing unit in the State of Maharashtra and it is also duly registered under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2005. 3.3 Registration of the petitioner under the VAT Act was ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.8 However, the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 16th June, 2023 rejected the Revision Application on the ground that Appeal would be maintainable under the provision of Section 73 against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 28th August, 2015 and Revision Application before the Tribunal would not be maintainable. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has preferred the Revision Application under Section 75(1)(b) as the Deputy Commissioner has exercised suo motu powers as delegatee of Commissioner under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act while invoking Section 27(5) for cancellation of the registration with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act. 6. It was, therefore, germane to refer to the relevant provisions of the VAT Act. 27. Cancellation of Registration. (5) If a dealer (i) without entering into a transaction of sale issues to another dealer tax invoice, retail invoice, bill or cash memorandum with the intention to defraud the Government revenue. 73. Appeal (1) An appeal from every original order, not being an order mentioned in section 74, passed under this Act or the rules, shall lie,- (a) if the order is made by a an Assistant Commissioner or Commercial Tax Officer, or any other officer sub-ordinate thereto, to the Deputy Commissioner; (b) if the order is made by a Deputy Commissioner, to the Joint Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 75 of the VAT Act with retrospective date. 6.2 The Deputy Commissioner could not have passed any order of cancellation of the registration with retrospective date suo motu without recourse to the provision of Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act which empowers the Commissioner who, of his own motion, within three years, to call for and examine the record of any order and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper within five years from the date of such order. 6.3 It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner passed the order under Section 75(1)(a) of the VAT Act under the delegated powers of the Commissioner. That means, the Deputy Commissioner has exercised the powers of Commissioner under Section 75(1)(a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
