TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....GVAT Act,2003, whereby learned First Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of appellant and confirmed the order of Learned Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, (3), Ghatak-9, Ahmedabad. The First Appeal was filed against the order of learned Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, (3), Ghatak-9, Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cancellation Authority'), passed on 28.08.2018 cancelling the lump-sum permission of appellant with effect from 01.04.2015 on ground of certain transactions were traced from the computer of appellant which were not matching with its books of accounts. (2) Mr. Nayan Sheth, the learned Advocate for the appellant appeared and submitted that the appellant is having restaurant for which it was granted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any tax liability as proposed. (4) He submitted that on primary verification, the learned State Tax Officer suggested that the appellant should deposit tax at the rate of 4% prescribed for composition under Section 14D of the VAT Act on the transactions suspected as suppressed sales, with regard to this the appellant extended co-operation and though it was objecting to the proposal of suppressed sales it further deposited Rs. 5,35,415/- on 18.08.2018. (5) He submitted that the learned Officer however proceeded on 28.08.2018 to pass an order cancelling the permission of composition issued under Section 14D of the VAT Act on the ground that the appellant has suppressed sales during the years 2015-16 to 2017-18 and that it has not given any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate of 4% on the alleged suppressed sales to contend that even the learned Officer had not considered any grievous error of suppression of sales on the part of the appellant and therefore, before any final decision is taken regarding assessment of the appellant for the years 2015-16 to 2017-18 the permission for composition should not be cancelled. (9) With regard to above submission we have simultaneously heard the Second Appeals against the First Appeals order summarily dismissing the First Appeals against the assessment orders which have been registered as Second Appeals Nos. 1556 to 1558 of 2018. With regard to aforementioned Second Appeals, Mr. Sheth submitted that the assessment orders have been passed in breach of the principles of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd therefore the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of composition under Section 14D of the VAT Act. He, therefore, submitted that the Second Appeal filed by the appellant is required to be rejected. Mr.Pujara further submitted that since the appellant has committed breach of the condition of lump-sum permission therefore, order of cancelling the lump-sum permission is just, proper and legal. (11) We have heard both the parties at length and pursued the records before us. It is apparent that suppression of sale is the reason for the cancellation of permission of composition. However, surprisingly the order of cancelling of permission for composition was passed on 28.08.2018 though the assessment orders alleging suppression of sales w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the appeals against the assessment orders by remanding the case to the learned First Appellate Authority for taking the decision on merits. (13) In our view, permission for composition is directly related to the decision regarding liability of the appellant in assessments. The learned Officer had cancelled the permission for composition even before framing the assessment order against the appellant. We believe that the First Appellate Authority was supposed to consider all the aspects before reaching to the conclusion regarding the suppression of sales by the appellant and rejecting the present Second Appeal in case of appellant. According to us, in the circumstances till any decision on assessments is taken if order cancelling permiss....