2013 (4) TMI 168 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of the registration - assessee contested that though show cause notice was issued on 19/10/12 despatched only on 2/11/12 and served on 7/11/12 it was cancelled on the date of issuance of the notice itself - writ petition is fled - Held that - SCN was served on the petitioner on 8/11/12. Petitioner did not respond to the notice and therefore registration was cancelled by order dated 28/11/12. It is stated that the date 19/10/12 shown in Ext.P2 is a mistake. Thus the basis on which the writ petition is filed that the registration was cancelled on 19/10/12 is factually erroneous. On submission of Government Pleader that it was only by order dated 28/11/12 the registration was cancelled and on that basis writ petition closed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Cancellation of registration under the KVAT Act based on a notice issued to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a dealer under the KVAT Act, received a notice dated 19/10/12 (Ext.P1) proposing the cancellation of their registration. The notice provided an opportunity to file objections and a hearing. However, the petitioner later received Ext.P2, stating that the registration was already cancelled on 19/10/12, the same date as the notice issuance. The petitioner contended that the notice was despatched on 2/11/12 and served on 7/11/12, making the cancellation premature. The Government Pleader clarified that the notice was served on 8/11/12, and as the petitioner did not respond, the registration was actually cancelled by an order dated 28/11/12, not on 19/10/12 as mistakenly mentioned in Ext.P2.

The court noted that the factual basis of the writ petition, claiming the registration was cancelled on 19/10/12, was incorrect. The Government Pleader confirmed that the cancellation occurred through an order dated 28/11/12, and not on the earlier date as mentioned in Ext.P2. Therefore, based on this clarification, the court accepted the submission of the Government Pleader and dismissed the writ petition.

As the petitioner had not received a copy of the actual cancellation order dated 28/11/12, the court directed the respondent to provide a copy of the order to the petitioner upon the production of a copy of the judgment. This directive aimed to ensure that the petitioner is informed of the correct date and basis of the registration cancellation under the KVAT Act.