TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion of law and facts arise in these appeals and Special Civil Application No.7278 of 2017 has been preferred by the dealer for appropriate writ, direction and order directing the respondent State Authority to implement the common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal impugned in the Tax Appeal No. 288 of 2017 and 289 of 2017, all these appeals and Special Civil Application are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 5.11.2015 passed in Second Appeal Nos. 707 & 708 of 2015, by which, the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeals preferred b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndhidham, Kutch. According to the dealer, the dealer filed online application for amendment of Registration Certificate on 22.2.2014 whereby the additional place of business was incorporated. That the dealer failed to file the returns for the period from April 2014 to March 2015 at Gandhidham. That the AO called upon the Dealer to show cause as to why the registration may not cancelled in exercise of powers conferred under Section 27(5)(g) of the VAT Act. It appears that the notice was sent at the original address which was found to be closed and therefore, the notice was affixed at the original address. That the Commercial Tax Officers (5), Gandhidham vide order dated 08.04.2015 canceled the registration certificate of the dealer both unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Appeals with aforesaid proposed question of law. 5.0. Shri Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in allowing the appeals and directing to restore the registrations of the dealer under the VAT Act as well as CST Act. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in not properly appreciating the fact that as such the registrations were cancelled under Section 27(5)(g) of the VAT Act as the dealer did not file the returns for three consecutive period i.e. April 2014 to March 2015. 5.1. It is veheme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....store the registrations on the ground, which were not even raised and / or considered by the original adjudicating authority. 6.3. It is submitted that therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the appeals preferred by the dealer and directing to restore the registrations. 7.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the adjudicating authority cancelled the registrations under the Gujarat VAT Act as well as CST Act under Section 27(5) (g) of the VAT Act on the ground that dealer did not file returns for three consecutive period i.e. April 2014 to March 2015. It appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal clearly revealed that no notice was issued and or served to the appellant prior to the cancellation of registration. The order of cancellation of registration also does not seem to have been served on the appellant. An attempt was made by the Department to serve the order by affixation. However, it was no affixed at the additional place of business of the appellant, in spite of the fact that such additional place of business was duly informed to the Department way back in February, 2014 and the order of cancellation of registration was passed on 8/4/2015. The registration was cancelled admittedly on the ground of nonfiling of three consecutive returns. The appellant has made good the said default and paid tax, interest and penalty. ....