9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent petition are as follows. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in the business of trading of iron rods, angles, bars and other allied products of iron. It is registered under the provisions of U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". According to the petitioner it is paying due taxes under the Act. During the Assessment Year 2009-10 the petitioner filed its monthly return in the prescribed form. A survey was conducted by the Special Investigation Branch, Unit-II, Varanasi in the Assessment Year 2009-10 in which suppressed turnover was assessed at Rs. 75,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed as tax. The matter is pending in appeal before the Tribunal in which a stay order has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition. While entertaining the the writ petition, this Court vide order dated 14th September, 2011 had passed the following order. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, Additional Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. He prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List on 18.10.2011. It is submitted by Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that for the year 2009-10 the petitioner was assessed under the UP Value Added Tax Act against which he has filed an appeal in which an interim order was passed. A survey was made by the SIB on 15.7.2011, in which it is alleged that the petitioner did not produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n stayed. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage in accordance with the Rules of the Court. We have heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.2 with a predetermined mind as none of the grounds taken for cancellation of the registration certificate are relevant. He submitted that so far as the suppressed turnover of Rs. 75,00,000/- during the Assessment Year 2009-10 is concerned, the matter has not yet attain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the registration granted to it. He submitted that the order passed by the respondent no.2 does not call for any interference. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties. We find that impugned order has been passed on two grounds, firstly- that the petitioner has suppressed its turnover amounting to Rs. 75,00,000/- during the Assessment Year 2009-10 and tax of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been imposed and secondly, three loose papers have been found at the time of survey made on 15th July, 2011 by the Special Investigation Branch, Unit-II, Varanasi which indicates that the petitioner is indulging in suppression of turnover. In our considered opinion both the grounds are not suffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
