Registration cancellation for repeated return defaults remains valid despite later filing with penalty under VAT law.

Cancellation of registration under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the dealer had failed to file three consecutive returns, and the later filing with penalty did not erase the default or curtail the authority's power to cancel registration. The court noted that the statute required recorded reasons and an opportunity of hearing, which were part of the cancellation process, and it found the dealer's explanation for non-filing to be an afterthought. The surrounding record, including non-disclosure of transactions and failure to intimate change of address, supported the action. The Tribunal's consideration of additional material did not vitiate the decision, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of registration under Section 27(5) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was valid despite the dealer subsequently filing the returns with penalty and whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the cancellation.

Analysis: Section 27(5) empowers cancellation where a dealer has failed to file three consecutive returns, and the authority must record reasons in writing and afford an opportunity of hearing. The dealer admittedly did not file returns for the relevant period, and the later filing of returns on payment of penalty did not wipe out the default or take away the authority's power to cancel registration. The explanation for non-filing was found to be an afterthought, and the record showed non-disclosure of transactions and failure to intimate change of address. The Tribunal's reliance on additional material did not vitiate the decision, and no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was upheld and the appeals failed.

---