9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax issued showcause notice dated 17.03.2008 calling upon the petitioner why such registration should not be cancelled. Alongwith such notice, he also included the grounds on which such proposal was made. These grounds included allegations of involvement of the petitioner in bogus billing activities. It was pointed out that the petitioner had made purchases from various dealers whose registrations were cancelled on account of their bogus billing activities. Subsequent notices highlighting this aspect and adding more allegations were issued. The case of the petitioner is that all these notices were duly replied. On almost each date of hearing fixed by the Commissioner, the petitioner remained present and on several occasions also filed the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenged by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.13690 of 2014. Since, the order of the Tribunal covered two separate proceedings disposing two revision petitions, at our insistence, the petitioner filed separate petition being Special Civil Application No.15779 of 2014 separating out the challenge to the two revisional orders passed by the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel Shri T. P. Hemani for the petitioner drew our attention to the order passed by the Commissioner and that passed by the Tribunal confirming such order of the Commissioner in revision petitions. He submitted that at all stages the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner. Though, the petitioner had remained present on each date of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion proceeded to confirm the proposal of cancellation of registration on the premise that the petitioner had indulged in the bogus billing activities. 7. There are fundamental flaws in the approach of the Commissioner. Firstly, as noted earlier, the petitioner had made representations in writing. Contentions raised in the petition were therefore required to be taken into account before the Commissioner could take any final decision. Secondly, without any discussion on material on record, even in an exparte proceeding, the Commissioner could not have jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner had indulged in bogus billing activities leading to revenue loss of Rs. 51 lakhs. At least a brief discussion on material on record was necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
