Limitation and registration cancellation under sales tax law must fit the statute's fixed time limit and specific grounds.

Revisional interference with a registration order under section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was time-barred because the three-year period ran from the date of the original order, not from discovery of any alleged mistake; the attempted revision therefore failed. Cancellation of registration under section 30-AA also could not stand because the recorded grounds did not squarely fit the specific statutory contingencies. An incorrect address or failure to intimate change of business premises, at most, supported penalty under the separate penalty provisions, while the alleged sale-related conduct did not satisfy the conditions for cancellation. The impugned cancellation was accordingly unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional power to interfere with the registration order was barred by limitation under section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. (ii) Whether cancellation of the dealer's registration could be sustained under section 30-AA of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 on the grounds recorded in the order.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional power to interfere with the registration order was barred by limitation under section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969.

Analysis: Section 67 permitted the Commissioner, or an officer exercising delegated powers, to call for and examine the record of an order within three years from the date of that order. The relevant order granting registration was dated 21 July 1998, so the period expired on 20 July 2001. The authority's materials showed that the investigation reports and the show-cause process arose after that date. The contention that limitation would run from the date of discovery of the mistake was rejected because the statutory language fixed the starting point as the date of the order sought to be revised.

Conclusion: The revisional action under section 67 was barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether cancellation of the dealer's registration could be sustained under section 30-AA of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 on the grounds recorded in the order.

Analysis: Section 30-AA was held to be confined to the specific contingencies stated in that provision. The recorded grounds of incorrect address, non-intimation of change of place of business, and an alleged inter-State sale without payment of tax did not fit the provision as invoked. Failure to intimate change of address could at most attract the penalty mechanism under section 45(7) read with section 38, not cancellation of registration. The alleged sale transaction also could not be brought within sub-section (1), which applied where a registered dealer issued a bill or cash memorandum without entering into a transaction of sale to defraud revenue. Sub-sections (2) and (2A) were likewise not attracted on the facts stated in the order.

Conclusion: Cancellation under section 30-AA was not legally sustainable on the grounds recorded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned cancellation and the Tribunal's affirmance were quashed, and the petition succeeded because the order was barred by limitation under section 67 and lacked support under section 30-AA.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute prescribes a fixed period for revisional interference, the period runs from the date of the original order sought to be revised, and cancellation of registration can be upheld only if the facts squarely fall within the specific statutory grounds authorising that drastic power.

---