TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 778
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present tax appeals to consider the following questions of law. (i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in interpreting and construing provisions of section 27(5)(i) of the Act? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not strictly and literally interpreting the provisions u/s 27(5) (i) of the Act in accordance with the rules of interpretation which specifically states that a taxing statute has to be strictly and literally construed? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not finding that the Authority or DCCT has no power or jurisdiction to cancel the registration of the purchaser (dealer) u/s 27(5)(i) of the Act? (iv) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not finding that the provisions of section 27(5) of the Act are not applicable to the dealer who purchases the goods? (v) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not finding that there was no intention to defraud the government revenue inasmuch as the appellant has suffered tax and paid the invoice amount with tax to the seller and therefore, the provisions of section 27(5)(i) are not applicable to the case of the applicant? (vi) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal has e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 26.2.2010 had cancelled the registration certification of the appellant ab initio under the provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act (GST Act) and Central Sales Tax (CST Act) 3.3 Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax cancelling the registration certificate of the appellant ab initio, the appellant preferred appeals before the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority by judgment and order dated 27.4.2010, dismissed the said appeals by observing that the appellant had shown purchases from one Sheth Metal Private Limited for the period between 28.5.2009 to 28.6.2009 for the total value of Rs. 1,09,91,577/-. However, the above transactions were not tallied with the returns filed by the said Sheth Metal Private Limited and the registration of the said Sheth Metal Private Limited has been cancelled ab initio. It appears that the first appellate authority also found some other discrepancies and came to the conclusion that the appellant had issued only bills without entering into the transaction of sale to defraud the Government revenue. By observing above, the first appellate authority confirmed the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egations being established, the registration certification of the appellant was liable to be cancelled. It is submitted that therefore, the entire action of cancelling the registration of the appellant has been taken without any show cause notice as required under section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act. It is submitted that therefore, as such, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax - first authority cancelling the registration certificate of the appellant ab initio is absolutely illegal against the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the VAT Act, more particularly, section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect has not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal while deciding the appeals. 4.3 Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has also tried to make other submissions on merits, however, for the reasons stated hereinafter, this Court proposes to remand the matter to the first authority and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits and after giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause as to why the registration certificate of the appellant should not be cancelled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to be given. From the earlier notice, it appears that the appellant was simply called upon to produce certain documents and even to explain the discrepancies. However, at no point of time, the appellant was called upon and/or informed that on the basis of the aforesaid inquiry and/or discrepancies, if any, the registration certificate of the appellant is required to be cancelled ab initio. Even, section 27(5)(i) of the Act provides that before cancelling the registration certificate ab initio, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned person whose registration certificate is sought to be cancelled ab initio. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the first authority cancelling the registration certificate ab initio can be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice and even in breach of section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act. The aforesaid has not been considered and/or dealt with by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order and dismissing the appeals. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears that what is weighed with the learned Tribunal is the observations made by the first appellate autho....