TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....January, 2024 cancelling the petitioner no. 1's registration under the said Act. 2. Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the petitioners by placing reliance on the aforesaid show cause notice submits that the same has not been issued in consonance with the provisions of Section 29 of the said Act. It is submitted that the show-cause notice does not disclose reasons as to why the petitioner no. 1's registration under the said Act is liable to be cancelled. Under the column reasons, "others" have been mentioned. According to the petitioners, the word "others" has not been specified as a ground for cancellation of registration under the said Act. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is a registered company and has been regularly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the respondents would corroborate from the Panchnama and the report of the postal department which is placed before this Court, a copy whereof is taken on record. 4. In the circumstances as aforesaid, it is submitted that there is no irregularity on the part of the respondents in passing the aforesaid order. It is still further submitted that the aforesaid proceeding was initiated by invoking the powers conferred on the proper officer by virtue of Section 29 (2) (e) of the said Act. As such no interference is called for. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Although, a lot of argument has been advanced by the learned advocate representing the petitioners that the show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cing reliance on the endorsement made by the postal authorities on a letter dated 17th January, 2024 attempts to establish that the petitioner no. 1 is not in existence, I am of the view that such a procedure to establish the existence or non-existence of a company is unknown in law. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that on physical verification the existence of the petitioner no. 1's business location could not be located by the respondents and since, the petitioners complain of procedural irregularity in connection with the physical verification of the petitioner no. 1's business premises, this Court to test out the bona fide of the petitioners, had sought for the views of the petitioners whether the petitioners are r....