TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (12) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proprietorship concern. Petitioner applied for grant of registration certificate to him under section 22 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As required under section 22, sub-section (4), the petitioner was granted a registration certificate, pursuant to holding of an enquiry, as contemplated under this provision. After the issuance of the registration certificate in its favour by the Commercial Tax Officer, an Inspector had recorded the statement of the petitioner on February 25, 1997. The said statement recorded by the Inspector has been filed and is marked as annexure P-5. 3.. It appears, that on the statement so recorded, the Commercial Tax Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was earlier carried on by Anil Mantri and Kantilal Mantri, under the name and style of M/s. M.S. Traders. The petitioner had also not filed the requisite returns within the time prescribed under the law. Thus, under section 22 of the Act it cancelled the registration certificate granted to the petitioner. 5.. Feeling aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred a revision under section 62 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax and prayed for quashment of the said order. However, the revisional authority also did not agree to the contention as advanced by the petitioner and upheld the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. Consequently and in the result the petitioner's revision was also dismissed. The petitioner has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 22 of the Act was not at all conducted. The enquiry, according to him, was just an eye-wash and an empty formality. He further submitted that no definite finding has been recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to come to the conclusion that petitioner's uncle and grandfather are actually carrying on the business and not the petitioner, yet a drastic order has been passed for cancellation of petitioner's registration. 9.. It is the case of the petitioner that when no direct or indirect nexus between the petitioner and the defaulter of the sales tax has been established, it was not a fit case where the petitioner's registration should have been directed to be cancelled. According to him the petitioner had assigned valid reasons for filing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emises. But for coming to the conclusion that petitioner being a name-lender, actual business is being carried on by the defaulting party, clinching and substantial evidence was required to be collected by respondent No. 1 while holding an enquiry in this regard. 12.. After going through the impugned order it is also clearly made out that even the authority concerned has not come to a definite conclusion. The order appears to have been passed on conjectures and surmises. When a valuable right of the petitioner is being taken away inasmuch as he is deprived from carrying on his business on account of the cancellation of the registration, the authority should have been cautious and careful in arriving at a definite conclusion. Unfortunatel....