2017 (3) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 548 days in preferring the Tax Appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad passed in Second Appeal No.577 of 2014, by which, the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeal preferred by the dealer and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the authority in cancelling the exemption certificate, which was cancelled after a period of 11 years. 2.0. We have heard Shri Hardik Vora, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State. We have also considered grounds stated / pleaded in the application in support of the prayer to condone the delay. Considering the averments made in the application in support of the prayer to condone the delay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of appeal before the learned Tribunal. It was the case on behalf of the dealer that learned Assistant Commissioner wrongly not granted full claim of R.D. Release of Rs. 34,74,71,037/in trading account even though all the supporting document like copy of ledger, sales bills, purchase books, list of trading account, identification of purchases and sales in trading account etc. were produced by the dealer in assessment proceeding and wrongly considered the purchases from URD without assigning any reasons. It was also submitted that the tax was wrongly taxed on the sales of Rs. 34,99,11,168/considering the sales of manufacturing activity. That by impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2005 the learned Tribunal remanded the matter to the Deputy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....being Second Appeal No. 335 of 2014 and Second Appeal No. 577 of 2014. By common impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the Second Appeal No. 335 of 2014 which was against the demand of tax and the dealer is held to be liable to pay tax 4,75,972/. It is required to be noted that the said order was challenged before this Court and there was delay in preferring the appeal and the Division Bench of this Court has rejected the condondation of delay as well as appeal on prima facie considering the appeal on merits. By common judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner cancelling exemption registration / certificate abinitio which is subject matter of pre....