TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 298
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short the "Tribunal") in Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018. 2. The appellant has proposed following questions as substantial questions of law arising out of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal: "5(a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in deciding the Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018 by restoring the lump sum cancellation order with effect from 01.04.2015. (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not considering the provision of Section 14D read with Rule 28(C)(7) under its true perspective." 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of suppressed sale. 3.7 Thereafter, on 28.08.2018, order cancelling the permission of composition issued under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003 was passed by the State Tax Officer on the ground that the respondent has suppressed sales during the years 201516 to 201718 and no explanation in support of it was filed by the respondent. The assessment order for the years 201516 to 201618 was passed on 19.09.2018. 3.8 The respondent=assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging assessment order and order of cancellation of composition and appeals were summarily dismissed on the ground of pre-deposit amount fixed on 25% of the total dues. 3.9 The respondent, therefore preferred Second Appeal Nos.1556 to 1558 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f First Appeals against the assessment orders for the aforementioned period. It is noticed by us that the appellant, the appellant had extended cooperation during the course of assessment proceedings. On various occasions, the appellant had appeared for hearing with submission and evidence before the Authority. It also appears that the appellant has made the substantial payment even before any order was passed against it. On perusal of record, it reveals that the last date fixed for hearing, adjournment was sought on the ground of non-availability of its learned consultant. The learned Officer, however, did not grant the adjournment. It also appears from the face of the order of assessment that, the Assessing Authority never bother....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and, if the learned Officer is directed to take decision relating to cancellation of permission for composition after the decision on assessments is finally taken it will not adversely affect the revenue." 6. The Tribunal, therefore, passed order allowing Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018 by quashing the order of cancelling the permission for composition of tax and the matter was restored to the State Cancellation Officer by giving liberty to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads thus: "Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018 is allowed. The order of cancelling the permission for composition and the First Appeal order confirming the same are hereby quashed and set aside, lumpsu....