9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Those premises were found closed. Another survey was conducted at the assessee's business premises on 16.02.2018. However, no adverse material is claimed to have been discovered during that survey proceedings. Besides the above two survey, the assessee claims to have cooperated in certain proceedings against a third party where under it had been summoned under Section 70 of the Act. 4. In the above background, the assessee received a notice through eportal of the revenue department on 22.07.2020 issued under Section 29 of the Act whereby the registration granted to the assessee under the Act was proposed to be cancelled for the following solitary reason : "Your firm was found bogus in inspection of SIB. Information received from headquarter." 5. The assessee was required to furnish its reply within seven working days and to appear before that authority on 24.07.2020 at 11:00 a.m. Undeniably, the assessee did not make compliance of the aforesaid notice. However, no order was passed on 24.07.2020. Also, no further notice was issued to the assessee in that proceeding. On 13.08.2020, the respondent authority cancelled the assessee's registration without disclosing any furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue Authority in the shape of survey report dated 15.12.2017. 8. Submission of learned counsel for the assessee is, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice on more than one count. In the first place, though the assessee may have failed to furnish its reply to the first notice dated 22.07.2020, no date was fixed in the proceedings and no date (of personal hearing) was communicated to the assessee before the order dated 13.08.2020 came to be passed. In any case, upon application for revocation of cancellation filed, the respondent authority was obligated to fix a date and time to hear the assessee. Mention of such a direction is also contained in the notice dated 21.08.2020. However, as has been noted above, no date or time was fixed for personal appearance of the assessee. 9. As to the second violation of principle of natural justice, it has been submitted, the original show cause notice dated 22.07.2020; the order dated 13.08.2020; notice dated 21.08.2020 and; the further order dated 20.08.2020 are, non-speaking. Neither at the stage of show cause notice, any reason permitted by the statute was mentioned or specified in that notice nor the assessee was conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee had been granted by the respondent authority. Therefore, a presumption does exist as to such registration having been granted upon due verification of necessary facts. If the respondent proposed to cancel the registration thus granted, a heavy burden lay on the respondent authority to establish the existence of facts as may allow for such cancellation of registration. Section 29(2) of the Act reads as below : "Section 29. Cancellation of suspension of registration (1) ... (2) The proper officer may cancel the registration of a person from such date, including any retrospective date, as he may deem fit, where,- (a) a registered person has contravened such provisions of the Act or the rules made there under as may be prescribed; or (b) a person paying tax under section 10 has not furnished returns for three consecutive tax periods; or (c) any registered person, other than a person specified in clause (b), has not furnished returns for a continuous period of six months; or (d) any person who has taken voluntary registration under subsection (3) of section 25 has not commenced business within six months from the date of registration; or (e) registration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tself remained defective in material aspect. 16. Though the notice for cancellation of registration may not be placed on a high pedestal of a jurisdictional notice, at the same time, unless the essential ingredients necessary for issuance of such notice had been specified therein at the initial stage itself, the authorities cannot be permitted to have margin or option to specify and/or improve the charge later. 17. In the present case, by merely describing the assessee firm "bogus", the respondent authority did not make known to the assessee the exact charge that was being levelled against the assessee. Correspondingly, the respondent authority deprived the assessee of the necessary opportunity to rebut the charge. 18. In view of the discussion made above, the charge levelled in the notice dated 22.07.2020 and as was reiterated in the order dated 13.08.2020 and the further notice dated 21.08.2020 are wholly, vague. Effectively, it prevented the assessee to rebut the same. The statute contemplates issuance of the notice in specified circumstances for specific grounds. Those could not be diluted or muddled or made vague by describing the assessee firm as "bogus". In absence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
