TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s whose registrations were cancelled ab initio – From the record of this order it emerges that assessee did not indulge in any bogus billing activity - The assessee had no bogus dealing with such dealers, in some of the cases dealers had also questioned the cancellation of their registration and that the assessee had never defaulted in filing returns or paying tax. Considering the turnover of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manish K. Kaji, Advocate ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) 1. These appeals are interconnected. They are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant is common in both the appeals. The appellant was granted registration under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act ( the VAT Act for short). It is the case of the appellant that earlier place of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner, the appellant preferred Second Appeal before the tribunal. The VAT authority further initiated action for cancellation of registration ab initio, on the ground that the assessee had entered into certain dubious transactions of merely passing entries without sale and purchase of goods. Eventually, order was passed on 21.4.2010 cancelling the registration ab initio. Against such order, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt tax appeal. We notice that the only ground on which the authority imposed the heavy condition of security of Rs. 10 lakhs was that the assessee had certain transactions with the dealers whose registrations were cancelled ab initio. Atleast, from the record of this order it emerges that assessee did not indulge in any bogus billing activity. To this issue, the assessee had pointed out to the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplications with parties who might have made purchases from him. 6. Considering such circumstances, condition imposed by VAT authority is modified by requiring the appellant assessee to give security to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs in terms of section 28(2) of the VAT Act. The appellant would have time upto 20.4.2014 to do so. 7. In view of above orders, both the tax appeals are allowed in part. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
