AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (2) of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (In short 'MVAT' Act, 2002) and Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Central Sales-Tax Act, 1956 (In short 'CST' Act) respectively. 2. The appellant has urged the following questions of law for our consideration : "(i) Whether in law and on facts, was the Tribunal right in setting aside the order of review dated 29.11.2012 holding that the notice in Form 309 issued in review proceedings was not properly served as per provisions of law hence no reason to go into genuineness of transactions ? (iii) Whether in law and on facts, was the Tribunal right in holding that the Officer sought to have followed each procedure for attempt to serve as provided in sub-rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cancelling registration with effect from 14.8.2006. 7. That upon inquiry, he came to know that Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Registration Branch, Mumbai vide order dated 4.12.2012 reviewed the earlier order of cancellation of registration with effect from 14.8.2006 under both the Acts as against 1.4.2009. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent-Dealer after obtaining certified copy of the order dated 4.12.2012 challenged it before the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals)I, Mumbai. 9. Appellate Authority having found no substance in the Appeal vide order dated 20.6.2013 dismissed the Appeal and upheld the order dated 4.12.2012. The Respondent-Dealer being dissatisfied with this order, approached the Tribunal by filing VAT Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat in the circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, quashed and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 21.4.2014 and restored the VAT Appeals to the file of the Tribunal for hearing and decision afresh on merits and in accordance with law. That in paragraph 17 of the said order, the Division Bench kept open all contentions of both sides on merits of the appeal. 15. That in terms of the directions issued in MVX Appeal No.1 of 2014, the Tribunal heard parties and vide order dated 25.1.2017 allowed the appeals of the Respondent-Dealer and set aside the review order dated 04.12.2012 whereby the registration certificates of the dealer under both the Acts were cancelled from its inception, i.e., from 14.8.2006. 16. That being ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., either on the dealer or his agent, as required by the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, the reassessing authority did not acquire jurisdiction in the instant case to initiate reassessment proceedings or to make an order of reassessment. It would follow that there being total lack of jurisdiction in the reassessing authority for want of valid service of notice, there was no question of the reassessment proceedings or the order of reassessment being validated by waiver on the ground that the assessee had taken part in the proceedings without raising objection as to the invalidity of the notice; and [emphasis supplied] (ii) That since the facts were on record and the question raised was a question relating to jurisdiction of the Sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not acquired jurisdiction to review its order dated 11.6.09 and cancel the registrations under both the Acts since inception i.e. 14.08.09, for want of valid service of notice. Thus, finding recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 37 that notice for review has not been properly served on the Appellant cannot be faulted with. 22. Mr. Sonpal the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant would submit that participation by the Respondent-Dealer in the review proceedings amounts to waiver of notice and, therefore, finding of the Tribunal that the review proceedings were bad in law for want of jurisdiction is incorrect. He would further submit that the Tribunal upon appreciating evidence/material on record rendered a finding in favour of the Re....