2001 (9) TMI 1108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allenged the order dated July 19, 2001 passed under section 48 of the Act and two provisional attachment orders dated July 27, 2001 under section 48A of the Act and the assessment order dated July 30, 2001 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (4), City Division 41, Ahmedabad. 3.. The petitioner had purchased goods from the persons who were registered as dealers under the Act on the date of relevant transactions in the year 1995-96. The petitioner's case is it was after the aforesaid transactions that the Sales Tax Department cancelled the registration of three dealers retrospectively and that on the basis of such cancellation, the transactions in question have been treated as purchases made by the petitioner from unregistered dealers. The rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by law to rely upon the certificate of registration of the selling dealer and to act upon it and that subsequent retrospective cancellation of the registration of the selling dealer can have no effect upon any person who had acted upon the strength of a registration when the registration was current. In Giriraj Sales Corporation v. State of Gujarat [2002] 125 STC 369, this Court further clarified that the purchasing dealer will have to be given the benefit of the aforesaid principle provided the transactions in question were bona fide and without any intention to defraud the Government revenue. In the later decision, this Court recorded the following statement made by the learned Additional Advocate-General: "(i) It is submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are found genuine they will not be affected by section 30AA and provisos thereto." 7.. In view of the aforesaid clear stand taken by the State Government in the aforesaid decision which is reiterated by Mr. U.R. Bhatt, learned AGP appearing for the respondents in this petition, it is clear that if the transactions are found to be genuine they will not be affected by section 30AA and provisos thereto. 8.. In this view of the matter, the respondents are required to re-examine the case in light of the principles laid down by the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company [1998] 109 STC 439 and in light of the aforesaid statement which was recorded by this Court in Giriraj Sales Corporation v. State of Gujarat [2002] 12....