Suspension of VAT registration requires pending cancellation proceedings; absent that condition, the suspension order cannot stand.

Suspension of registration under section 17(12) of the Uttar Pradesh VAT Act was invalid because that power could be exercised only during pending cancellation proceedings under section 17(11), and the admitted facts showed no such proceedings were pending when the order was made. The statutory precondition for suspension was therefore absent, and the order was quashed. The Court did not interfere with the seizure order, noting that the statutory alternative remedy under section 48(7), followed by an appeal under section 57, was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension of registration under section 17(12) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was valid when cancellation proceedings under section 17(11) were not pending.

Analysis: Section 17(12) permits suspension of registration only during cancellation proceedings under section 17(11), and only if the registering authority is satisfied that revenue loss may result. The factual position was admitted that when the suspension order was passed, no cancellation proceedings were pending. The statutory condition precedent for exercise of power under section 17(12) was therefore absent. As regards the seizure order, the Court declined to examine it in view of the statutory alternative remedy under section 48(7) followed by an appeal under section 57.

Conclusion: The suspension order was unsustainable and was quashed. The seizure order was not interfered with.

---