9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and final hearing of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the retrospective operation of the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 (annexed at Annexure-A); D. Ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer-C may kindly be granted; E. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay cost of this petition to the Petitioners; F. Such further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice for which act of kindness your petitioners shall forever pray." 2. The writ-applicants were engaged in the business of trading in old machinery and parts and they were registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, the "VAT Act"). 3. On the basis of the search proceedings conducted at the premises of the writ-applicants on 3.10.2013, the provisional assessment was made for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, wherein certain input tax credits were disallowed on the ground that some purchases were not genuine. 4. The writ-applicants had filed first appeals challenging the provisional assessment orders. While deciding the first appeal for the year 2010-11, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Petitioners? (2) Whether the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Nageshi Enterprise, (2017) 104 VST 204 (Guj.) would be applicable to the facts of the Petitioners? (3) Whether the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the first appellate authority confirming the cancellation of registration certificate of the Petitioners on the basis of the allegations and grounds neither made out nor established in the original order cancelling the registration certificate?" 9. This Court allowed the Tax Appeal filed by the writ-applicants by a detailed judgement dated 11.12.2019. The entire record of the writ-applicants was examined. It was, thereafter, held inter-alia by this Court that the registration certificate ought not to be retrospectively cancelled merely on the basis of some allegation of discrepancy in few transactions. The relevant observations made by Court read thus : "24. In the case of the Petitioners, even if the order of the first appellate authority were to be accepted, at best, on the basis thereof it could be said that the Petitioners had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the registration of the writ-applicants under the VAT Act was restored by the respondent - authorities. 11. The respondent No.2, however, once again issued a show cause notice to the writ-applicant dated 19.9.2020 proposing to retrospectively cancel their registration certificate under the VAT Act on similar ground that some of the transactions of the writ-applicants were allegedly suspicious/not genuine. 12. The writ-applicants responded by stating that the issue had already been examined by this Court and it had been held that the registration certificate of the writ-applicants could not have been retrospectively cancelled on the basis that some transactions were suspicious or non-genuine as this would adversely affect the genuine transactions which were not disputed. 13. The respondent no.2 - authority, however, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 to once again retrospectively cancelling the registration certificate of the writ-applicants on the ground that some transactions of the writ-applicants were suspicious and not genuine. The authority has proceeded on the footing that the Tax Appeal was allowed only on the ground that the first appeal order confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the writ-applicants relied upon a judgement of this Court. Even, in so far as the evidences in support of the transactions of the writ applicants are concerned, the writ-applicants indicated in their reply to the show-cause notice that such documents were already lying with the authority. This is apparent from the seizure order dated 19.5.2018 (annexed at Annexure L). Thus, the allegation of non-cooperation in the impugned order is contrary to facts on record. 17. Mr.Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents, would submit that none of the contentions canvassed on behalf of the writ-applicants are tenable as the Tax Appeal of the writ-applicants was allowed solely on the ground that the respondent - authority had travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. Mr.Dave very fairly submitted that this is the only contention available to the respondents. 18. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration is, whether the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 authority is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 19. The impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
