9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evisional Authority cancelling registration of the respondent, the Revenue has preferred present Special Civil Applications. 3.0. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Applications in nutshell are as under: 3.1. That the respondent was holding Tin No. 24071902726 under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 as well as 24571902726 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 w.e.f. 2.2.2012. That the authority issued Form No. 401 upon the respondent on 4.7.2015. However, the same was not served upon the respondent and it was discovered that the respondent assessee / trader is not carrying on the business at its registered address and it was found that on the said address some other dealer was carrying on its business activities. That thereafter, authority contacted the respondent and respondent stated that since last six months,it has shifted his place of business, however the same was never brought to the notice of the authority. That thereafter, notice in the form no. 401 was issued upon the respondent and he was called upon to remain present with all documents on 09.07.2014. However, respondent failed to produce any documents on that day. Instead on 10.07.2014, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserving that the original applicant - respondent herein had made payment of Rs. 4,45,645/towards Input Tax Credit claimed by the assessee, by impugned order the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the revisional authority cancelling the registration of the assessee abinitio. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has specifically observed and made it clear that the respondent herein - original applicant has admitted that he was not entitled to ITC of Rs. 4,45,645/and that it had willingly paid the said amount, therefore, he will not have right to claim said ITC in any assessment. 3.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal passed in Revision Applications No. 32 and 33 of 2015, by which, the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority cancelling the registration number of the trader / assessee abinitio and has directed the concerned authority to restore the registration, the Revenue has preferred present Special Civil Applications. 4.0. Shri Hardik Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h no reasons whatsoever are assigned by the learned Tribunal restoring registration, by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority and by vaguely stating that considering entire circumstances, the documents and the payment the applicant had made, registration is required to be restored. It is submitted that the aforesaid can hardly be said to be assigning any reason. It is submitted that as such the learned Tribunal has not observed and / or given any finding that finding recorded by the Revisional Authority are perverse and / or contrary to the evidence on record. 4.5. It is further submitted by Shri Hardik Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader that from the impugned judgment and order, it appears that what is weighed with the learned Tribunal is that the respondent agreed to deposit and deposit Rs. 4,45,645/towards wrong ITC claimed. It is submitted that the aforesaid can hardly be a ground to restore the registration, more particularly, when the respondent specifically admitted that though it was not entitled to claim ITC of Rs. 4,45,645/, it claimed the same. It is submitted that after having caught and after having found that it had claimed I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent had already deposited ITC of Rs. 4,45,645/which was claimed by it and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly quashed and set aside order passed by the Revisional Authority cancelling the registration and has rightly directed the authority to restore the registration. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Applications. 6.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that registrations of the respondent was cancelled by the First Revisional Authority on the ground that transaction of sale and purchase by the respondent with M/s. Holis Enterprise, M/s. Babulal and Co. and M/s. Mayur Enterprise were not genuine and that the respondent had indulged in the billing activities only and that it wrongly claimed ITC of Rs. 4,45,645/. That the finding recorded by the First Appellate Authority was after giving fullest opportunity to the respondent to prove the genuineness of the transaction, which the respondent failed to prove. That the First Revisional Authority cancelled the registration by giving specific finding to the aforesaid extent. However, before the learned Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly furnishes incomplete or incorrect particulars in his returns with a view to evade tax; or without entering into a transaction of sale issues to another dealer tax invoices, retail invoices, bill or cash memorandum, with intention to defraud the Government revenue or who has been found evading tax on account of variation in physical stock compared with his regular books of accounts, its registration is liable to be cancelled. 8.0. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case the respondent had specifically admitted that it was not entitled to ITC of Rs. 4,45,645/and that he wrongly claimed / availed the ITC of Rs. 4,45,645/. Even the learned Tribunal has specifically observed in the impugned order that the respondent (original applicant) has admitted that it was not entitled to ITC of Rs. 4,45,645/and that it had willingly paid the said amount, therefore, it will not have right to claim said ITC in any assessment. If that be so and when found that though he was not entitled to claim of Rs. 4,45,645/, it wrongly claimed and got the same, meaning thereby, respondent admitted that it had indulged into billing activities only, its registration was required t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
