Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURTCancellation of registration - discrepancies found in the orders of assessment for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 - differences noted in the turnover reported in the petitioner's returns and in the supply vouchers provided by the Indian Oil Corporation - order passed without providing sufficient time to the petitioner to submit its objections - Held that:- registration granted in favour of the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled by the respondent, either by his earlier, order dated February 23, 2010, or by the subsequent order, dated August 27, 2010. It is clear that the respondent had exceeded his jurisdiction by cancelling the registration granted in favour of the petitioner, without affording a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. An alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, under section 45 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007, to challenge the order of the respondent cancelling the registration, in cases where the principles of natural justice are violated, this court can exercise its powers, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant the relief to the petitioner, by setting aside the impugned order, especially, when a fundamental right of a person to carry on its trade, occupation or business is infringed. It is not open to the respondent to claim that his impugned order, dated August 27, 2010, is only a statement of the factual position, as it existed on the date of the passing of the said order. It is also noted that the petitioner had requested for the renewal of registration, for the year 2011-12, by paying the necessary fee. It is also seen that the petitioner had made a request for renewal of the registration by a representation, dated April 29, 2011, along with the fee payable for such registration, by way of a demand draft. However, the renewal of registration had not been granted to the petitioner, till date. By an order, dated September 16, 2010, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Registration), Puducherry, had stated that the registration made in favour the petitioner is active. Therefore, the petitioner was permitted to file the return and to pay the tax. It had also been stated that there was no instruction or order for the deactivation of the registration certificate in the computer system and therefore, the petitioner can carry on its regular business, based on the interim stay granted by this court, in M.P. No. 1 of 2010, in W.P. No. 3904 of 2010. As such, the claim of the respondent on the request of the petitioner for the renewal of the petitioner, for the year 2011-12, cannot be countenanced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|