TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Officer, Jorabagan Charge (respondent No. 1) under section 29(1)(a) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, the VAT Act ). The order was communicated to the applicant under memo No. 122(B) dated April 23, 2010. The applicant had been granted registration both under the VAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, the CST Act ) on August 26, 2009. According to the applicant, he was regularly carrying on the business from the address as above and was submitting returns regularly. Returns for the quarter ending on December 31, 2009 were filed on February 19, 2010. He also applied for amendment of the Registration Certificate (in short, RC ) issued under the VAT Act as well as under the CST Act and such appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VAT Act. It is, therefore, contended that the cancellation was made for the reason not mentioned in the show-cause notice. It appears from the communication made by respondent No. 1 that the RC was cancelled on the alleged ground of non-existence of the business at the declared place of business. In the said letter, it has nowhere been stated as to how respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion that the applicant was not carrying on business from the declared place of business. Such cancellation, as claimed by the learned advocate, was made without allowing any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the contention of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, as asserted by the learned advocate, did not even consider the explanation furnished by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t also the postal departmental authorities could not locate the declared place of business of the applicant at the given address. It is admitted by the learned State Representative that notices are preprinted. But such pre-printed notice does not prejudice the applicant as because such notices are issued only upon being satisfied that steps are required to be taken as per provision of the respective sections quoted therein. He draws our attention to the fact that two sections are quoted in the said notice, one is section 24(2A) and other one is section 29. Section 29(1) has six clauses and the relevant clause is mentioned when a notice is required to be sent for taking action as per provision contained in that particular clause. He furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is, therefore, submitted by the learned State Representative that there is no reason to interfere with the orders challenged in this petition. It is also argued that mere filing of a return does not prove that a dealer is carrying on business from the declared place of business. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records as were made available to us during the course of hearing. The grievance of the applicant is summarized as below: (i) Pre-printed notice was issued for non-submission of returns but the RC was cancelled for non-existence at the declared place of business; (ii) In view of (i) above, the applicant did not get reasonable opportunity to place his case properly; (iii) Respondent No. 1 did not disclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority where such authority after giving reasonable opportunity to such dealer of being heard is satisfied that the dealer is not entitled to enjoy the benefit of registration in view of the grounds set forth in clauses (a) to (f) therein. It appears to us that reasonable opportunity had been granted to the applicant. Next allegation of the applicant is that the materials used by respondent No. 1 had not been disclosed to him for which he could not refute those allegations. The applicant could have an access to such reports had he appeared before respondent No. 1 on the date fixed for hearing. But he chose not to appear and thereby invited the problem. It has been claimed by the applicant that he is carrying on business from the place as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equired to display a signboard at a conspicuous place at his place of business showing his trade name and address of place of business including premises number, floor, room number, etc., if any. It prima facie appears that no such signboard was there. Had such a signboard been there, postal authorities would not have remarked about the non-existence of the dealer, neither the inspecting authority of Jorabagan Charge could observe that there was no signboard of the applicant at the declared place of business. Place of business, as defined under section 2(29) of the VAT Act means a place from where a dealer sells any goods or where he keeps accounts, registers or documents including those in the form of electronic records relating to sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
