9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether the order of cancellation cancelling the assessee's registration could have been made and sustained by the appellate authority and the Tribunal on grounds different from those disclosed in the show cause notice? B. Whether in registration of the assessee could have been cancelled with retrospective effect? 3. Briefly, the admitted facts of the case are that the assessee was registered under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter fererred to as the Act), under Section 17 (11) of the Act. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the Assistant Commissioner proposing to cancel its registration. Perusal of the notice reveals that it was issued on three points: (i). records revealed that the assessee was engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or an adequate opportunity of hearing, it is necessary that the assessee be confronted with the exact charge levelled against him and also with the adverse material relied against him. Neither the exact charge was disclosed to the assessee vide notice dated 24.10.2016 nor the adverse material was disclosed to the assessee. Referring to the order dated 18.11.2016, it has been submitted that it for the first time disclosed the names of the other dealers M/S Shiva Traders & Contractors, M/S Ashoka Elignce Amantran, M/S A.K. Contraction Company and M/S Mithlesh Enterprises with whom the assessee is alleged to have performed bogus transactions. 7. Again for the first time, by means of the order dated 18.11.2016 it was disclosed that M/S Mithile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volume of such transactions nor the name of the dealer with whom asseessee is alleged to have traded in goods after cancellation of the registration of the other dealers or after closure of business by the other dealer. Unless the aforesaid facts were clearly adverted to in that notice and unless the adverse material relied against the assessee had been disclosed to him, the same could not have been read against him, in evidence. 11. In absence of such disclosure contained in the show cause notice dated 24.10.2016, it is difficult to contemplate how a person in the shoes of present assessee could have responded to the show cause notice and defended the proceedings for cancellation of his registration. Unless the assessee had been confront ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances in which his registration was being cancelled and in any case material that formed the basis of the charge was completely cancealed from the assessee. 13. The appellate authority and the Tribunal have erred in not correcting the mistake thus committed by the assessing authority. The first question of law is thus answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the asseessee and against the revenue. 14. In view of the above, the second question does not require to be answered in the present case. At the same time, keeping in mind the nature of allegation leveled against the assessee, the proceeding cannot be allowed rest here. It is then provided that the assessing authority shall issue a fresh notice in terms of the order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
