Composition permission cannot be cancelled before assessment is final; inadequate inquiry also justified remand for fresh consideration.

A Gujarat VAT Tribunal note states that cancellation of lump-sum composition permission based on alleged suppression of sales was not sustainable when the underlying assessment had not yet finally determined that liability; the cancellation was retrospective, unfair, and unreasonable, so the composition permission was restored. It also notes that assessment orders were passed without proper inquiry into the dealer's submissions and evidence, and the rejection of the appeals could not stand, so the assessment matters were remanded to the First Appellate Authority for reconsideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of lump-sum composition permission under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, based on alleged suppression of sales, could stand when the assessment on the same alleged suppression had not yet been finally determined. (ii) Whether the assessment appeals required remand because the assessment orders were passed without proper inquiry and effective consideration of the appellant's submissions.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of lump-sum composition permission under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, based on alleged suppression of sales, could stand when the assessment on the same alleged suppression had not yet been finally determined.

Analysis: The cancellation of composition permission was founded on alleged suppression of sales, but the cancellation order was passed before the assessment orders recording such suppression were made. The cancellation thus proceeded on a pre-judgment of liability and operated retrospectively with serious financial consequences. In the circumstances, the decision to cancel the composition permission before final determination of the assessments was held to be unfair, unreasonable, and not legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The cancellation of composition permission and the order confirming it were set aside, and the lump-sum permission was restored.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment appeals required remand because the assessment orders were passed without proper inquiry and effective consideration of the appellant's submissions.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant had participated in the proceedings, produced submissions and evidence, and even made payments before the orders were passed. The assessment order did not reflect proper inquiry into the material placed by the appellant, and the adjournment request on the last hearing date was not accepted. The appellate dismissal of the assessment appeals was therefore not allowed to stand, and the matters were directed to be reconsidered on merits.

Conclusion: The assessment appeals were remanded to the First Appellate Authority for on merits.

Final Conclusion: The composition cancellation could not be sustained at the stage when the underlying tax liability was still under adjudication, and the connected assessment matters were sent back for fresh consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A composition permission cannot be cancelled on the basis of alleged suppression of sales before the alleged liability is finally determined in assessment proceedings, particularly where the cancellation is retrospective and the affected dealer's submissions have not been properly examined.

---