TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'the CST Act' for short). The business premises of the petitioner firm were subjected to search operation by the VAT authorities on 27.06.2017, pursuant to which the petitioner's shop was sealed on the same day. The order of the authority of the said date sealing the premises is produced at Annexure:A. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the authorities have no power under the VAT Act to seal the business premises. 2. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 27.06.2017 canceling the petitioner's registration under the VAT Act and the CST Act with effect from 22.06.2010. This order the petitioner has challenged, inter alia, on the grounds of no notice, no hearing and retrospective cancellatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed, or any goods have not been or may not be accounted for in the books of account, registers or other documents required to be maintained under this Act, with a view to evade or attempt to evade payment of tax due under the earlier law or under this Act, ... ... (vi) seal the premises including the office, shop, godown, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle leaves the place or is not available or fails or refuses to open it when called upon to do so, or causes or attempts to cause obstruction to the Commissioner or the authorised officer in the discharge of his duties under this section." 5. However, by Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 was substituted from the original, in which, these powers are completely missing. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistration would be cancelled from such date. The respondents also rely on a notice dated 12.06.2017 fixing date of hearing of said show cause notice on 19.06.2017. 8. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has averred that the notice dated 23.03.2017 was never served on him and that he received the notice dated 12.06.2017 when he opened his business premises. This notice carried a stamp of delivery of 21.06.2017. Thus, the notice of hearing dated 19.06.2017 was delivered to the petitioner on 21.06.2017. The respondents have not controverted either of these two factual assertions. In other words, the respondents are unable to show any evidence of service of the first notice dated 23.03.2017 or of service of second notice dated 12.06.20....