TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us thing which is bad for the environment. From bare perusal of Section 24 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, it is evidently clear that if an offence is punishable under this act and the offender is also found guilty of said offence, offender shall be liable to punish under other act and not under Environment (Protection), 1986 Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited [ 2011 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that a taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed therein meaning thereby when Section 29 read with rule 21 specifically provides a complete mechanism statute under which the registration can be cancelled and no aid can be taken by any other statute - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Agra Coal Suppliers [ 2011 (5) TMI 1145 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that in the area of TTZ, the registration cannot be cancelled. Admittedly, no order of cancellation was passed on the date fixed for 29.4.2022, but thereafter on 14.10.2022 for which neither any notice nor any communication was made to the petitioner. Further, in the cancellation of registration order, it h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the petitioner for the reason assigned therein with the direction of the TTZ authority and written direction by JC (SIB) B Agra for cancellation of registration of all coal depot. The petitioner submitted the reply through registered post on 3.10.2022 in response to the notice dated 24.09.2022. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide impugned order dated 14.10.2022 with effect from 18.8.2022. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, but the same has also been rejected by order dated 1.12.2022. Hence the present petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not violated any provision of GST Act; more precisely, contained in Section 29 read with Rule 21 of UPGST Act and Rules framed therein. The registration of the petitioner has been cancelled at the behest of direction issued by JC (SIB) B, Agra as well as the direction of TTZ authority, but neither a copy of such direction has been provided at any stage to the petitioner nor the same was annexed along with the copy of notice issued to the petitioner. He further submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . State of U.P., 2022 NTN (Vol.80)-309 . 8. He further submitted that even assuming without admitting that under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the power has been exercised under Section 5 directing for cancellation of registration of the coal depot in Agra, the same cannot be passed as the said provision only applies to industry or any person involve or such operation, but the petitioner is only the coal dealer carrying on business of purchasing and selling, which do not pollute the environment. Therefore, it will not be covered by the said direction. 9. He further submitted that for the first time in the counter affidavit Annexure CA - 2 was brought on record showing that TTZ authorities have been constituted under the provision of Section 3 sub-clause (3) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the same has been constituted by way of Notification dated 17.05.1999, which was for a period of two years. He further submitted that thereafter in 2003, the period was again extended for two years only and thereafter in 2005, again the same was extended for two years. In view of the said fact, he submitted that period after 14.1.2005, TTZ authorities cannot act as it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner is not entitled for any relief from the Court as the petitioner did not adhere to the directions issued from time to time under the Environment (Protection) Act as well as TTZ authorities constituted in pursuance of the N.C. Mehta case (supra) . He further submitted that the petitioner was required to maintain the sale register of coal in detail as well as to acquire the no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board and other authorities, but till date the same has not been uploaded. He further submitted that after following the due process under UPGST Act as well as Rule, the registration has rightly been cancelled. He further submitted that since the petitioner was not maintaining the sale register, which is a clear violation of GST Act and rule itself, therefore, the registration has rightly been cancelled. He further submitted that the petitioner has also not followed the mandate of TTZ authorities by not maintaining the coal register. He further submitted that the TTZ authorities is competent by subsequent notification, which is annexed in the counter affidavit and placed reliance upon the copy of the same by which the period valid up to 2024. He prays for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er this Act 19. From bare perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is evidently clear that if an offence is punishable under this act and the offender is also found guilty of said offence, offender shall be liable to punish under other act and not under Environment (Protection), 1986 Act. 20. In other word, if any other enactment is in operation, then environment act has overriding effect, but for punishing and such punishment will be under that Act. Any direction given by the TTZ Authorities for cancellation of registration has to be in accordance with Section 29 read with rule 21 of GST Act and Rules therein. The GST authorities cannot blindly follow said direction of TTZ Authorities. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited (supra) has categorically held that a taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed therein meaning thereby when Section 29 read with rule 21 specifically provides a complete mechanism statute under which the registration can be cancelled and no aid can be taken by any other statute and the relevant para 20 is being quoted below:- 20. A taxing statute must be interpreted in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as stay application is disposed of. 23. On perusal of the record, it further shows that 56 meetings have been held, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-7. The meeting dated 11.5.2022, the Agenda-3; direction (iii) refers with regard to coal dealer and the directions therein at page 131 to the counter affidavit, which is quoted below:- 24. On perusal of the said direction, It only refers with regard to 26 coal dealers, the direction was for tax authorities for passing an appropriate order against 26 coal dealers only and not for all coal dealers of Agra. 25. The Court is constrained to observe that the taxing authorities (GST) in the State of U.P on the zeal to pleasing the TTZ authorities have issued two letters dated 18.8.2022 and 19.09.202, copy of which have been annexed and Annexure Nos. 17 18 directing for cancel the registration of all coal dealer of Agra, which was neither intend nor the direction by the TTZ authorities. The authorities are bent upon to take action against all coal dealers of Agra illegally, which also clears from the Joint Commissioner's letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner, but the next mentions the reply date. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court passed in Agra Coal Suppliers (supra) impugned order cannot sustain. 29. The record further reveals that along with the cancellation order, an appendix order has been filed in the counter affidavit to which learned Senior Counsel has argued that the appendix along with the cancellation order has been brought on record for the first time. 30. On the pointed query put to learned A.C.S.C as to whether the appendix annexed as Annexure-24 to the registration certificate was ever been brought on record before the first appellate authority or the same was communicated to the petitioner, he could not reply the same, so it appears that to improve the case of the revenue such appendix has been annexed for the first time by the officer/respondent in the counter affidavit. 31. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi AIR 1978 SC 851 has held that State authority cannot be permitted to supplement fresh reasons by means of affidavit. 32. In view of the said fact and the law of the Hon ble Apex court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was found non-functioning; it does not indicate as to when the inspection was carried. A vague show-cause notice without any allegation or proposed evidence against the petitioner, clearly is violative of principles of administrative justice. Cancellation of registration is a serious consequence affecting the fundamental rights of carrying business and in a casual manner in which the show-cause notice has been issued clearly demonstrates the need for the State to give the quasi-adjudicatory function to persons who have judicially trained mind, which on the face of it absent in the present case. The order of cancellation of the registration on the ground that no reply was given is equally lacking in terms of a quasi-judicial fervor as the same does not contain any reasoning whatsoever. The show-cause notice issued after the petitioner had filed an application for revoking the cancellation of registration also smacks of lack of judicial training by the quasi-adjudicatory authorities under the GST Act as it merely shows that no satisfactory explanation was received within the prescribed time. 20. The petitioner in the ground of appeal and in the written argument filed in suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
