1988 (11) TMI 333 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the cancellation of registration certificate by Sales Tax Officer.
2. Allegation of non-consideration of show cause by the Sales Tax Officer.
3. Error in concluding that no show cause was filed by the petitioner.
4. Request for quashing the order of cancellation and revisional order.
5. Direction for reconsideration of cancellation after considering the show cause.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of their registration certificate by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I, West Circle, through a writ application. The petitioner contended that they had submitted a show cause in response to a notice issued by the opposite party No. 2, but the Sales Tax Officer canceled the registration without considering the show cause. The petitioner, after an unsuccessful revision before the Commissioner, approached the High Court.

2. The primary argument against the orders of the Commissioner and the Sales Tax Officer was that the petitioner did submit the show cause on time, contrary to the assertion in the impugned order. Evidence in the form of a receipt from the office of the Sales Tax Officer was produced to support the claim that the show cause was indeed filed on 24th October, 1986. The court noted that the Sales Tax Officer and the Commissioner erred in stating that no show cause was filed, as the evidence proved otherwise.

3. The court found that the petitioner had indeed filed the show cause within the stipulated time, even though it was submitted to the head clerk instead of the bench clerk. The failure to consider the show cause by the authorities was deemed a crucial error, leading to the decision to quash the order of cancellation by the Sales Tax Officer and the revisional order of the Commissioner. The court directed the Sales Tax Officer to reevaluate the cancellation decision after taking into account the show cause submitted by the petitioner.

4. The Additional Standing Counsel for the Sales Tax Department acknowledged the receipt produced by the petitioner but claimed that the actual show cause was not on record. To rectify this, the petitioner's counsel agreed to provide a copy of the show cause for the Sales Tax Officer's consideration. The court disposed of the writ application accordingly, without imposing any costs on either party.

5. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of due consideration of submissions and evidence in administrative decisions such as the cancellation of a registration certificate. The judgment highlighted the procedural errors made by the authorities and underscored the need for a fair review process in such matters.