Non-genuine billing and wrongful input tax credit cannot be cured by later repayment to restore registration.

A dealer's registration could not be restored where the record showed non-genuine sale and purchase transactions, issuance of bills without real trade, and wrongful availment of input tax credit. The Tribunal had set aside cancellation mainly because the dealer later repaid the wrongly claimed amount, but it gave no cogent reasons to displace the revisional authority's findings. The Court held that later repayment alone does not cure the underlying fraud-like conduct or justify restoration of registration under section 27(5) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which permits cancellation for incorrect particulars or invoices issued without genuine transactions intended to defraud revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the restoration of registration could be sustained when the dealer had been found to have indulged in billing activities only and had wrongly claimed input tax credit, and the Tribunal set aside cancellation of registration without dealing with the revisional authority's findings.

Analysis: The registration was cancelled on findings that the transactions of sale and purchase were not genuine, that the dealer had only issued bills, and that it had wrongly availed input tax credit. The Tribunal restored the registration mainly because the dealer later deposited the wrongly claimed amount, but it did not record any cogent reasons displacing the revisional authority's findings. In the circumstances, subsequent payment of the wrongly claimed input tax credit could not by itself justify restoration of registration. Section 27(5) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 contemplates cancellation where a dealer furnishes incorrect particulars or issues invoices without genuine transactions with intent to defraud revenue.

Conclusion: Restoration of registration was unsustainable. The cancellation of registration was rightly made, and the Tribunal's order restoring registration was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded and the order of the Tribunal was quashed, with the cancellation of registration restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer is found to have engaged in non-genuine billing and wrongful availment of input tax credit, mere later repayment of the disputed amount does not, without rebutting the recorded findings, warrant restoration of registration.

---