2024 (10) TMI 1011

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no activity was found, nor the books of account were produced, to which the petitioner submitted written submission on 13.06.2018. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 30.06.2018, the registration of the petitioner has been cancelled under section 29(2)(a) of the UP GST Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 07.08.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for cancellation of registration, section 29(2)(a) of the UP GST Act stipulates certain conditions as (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e), but none of the said conditions has been violated by the petitioner for which its registration can be cancelled. He further submits that the show cause notice was given with a limited purpose, but while cancelling the registration, certain new facts were incorporated, to which neither any notice, nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut. He further submits that the appeal of the petitioner was rejected, in which more new grounds were mentioned, to which again neither any notice was issued, nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the same. He further submits that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the petitioner is indulging only in wrong availment of ITC, but before taking an adverse inference against the petitioner, neither any notice was issued to him, nor any opportunity was given to rebut the said finding. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, but to the utter surprise, further information was gathered behind the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the said finding recorded at the internal page no. 3 of the impugned order, where a tabulation has been shown that the goods have been transported through various bilties and thereafter, finding has been recorded that the supplies have been shown, to which an inquiry was made that the petitioner - firm's registration was suspended or cancelled. 11. Once on the basis of some material is to be used against the dealer, then it should be put to notice before using the same. But in the case in hand, the petitioner was never put to notice for material use adversely against it, which is in violation of the principle of natural justice and the authorities have not adhered to the same. Further, for cancellation of registration, section 29(2) (a) to (e) is provided....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e cancelled only if one of the five statutory conditions was found present. Per se, no registration may be cancelled by merely describing the firm that had obtained it, was "bogus". The word "bogus" has not been used by the statute. The only contingency to which such expression may relate may be one appearing under Clauses (c) and (d) of Section 29(2) of the Act being where a registered firm does not commence its business within six months of its registration. Other than that, the term "bogus" may also refer to a satisfaction contemplated by Section 29(2)(c) of the Act where registration may be cancelled if the registered firm has not furnished its return for continuous period of six months. Those conditions have not been shown to exist in this case. 14. Yet, in case the authority wanted to cancel the existing registration, it ought to have mentioned (in the show cause notice), if it proposed to cancel the registration for violation of Section 29(2)(c) of the Act or for violation of Section 29(2)(d) of the Act. It cannot be a matter of contemplation or option either with the authority or the assessee to find out for itself by any guesswork or exploratory exercise, if the c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntemplated in section 29(2) of the UPGST Act and not otherwise. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), V, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad as well as the order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 under section 29(2)(a) of the UP GST Act are hereby quashed. 13. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 14. Before parting, the Court feels that the petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation. Therefore, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon the respondent concerned, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 15. The respondent concerned is directed to file a compliance report with regard to payment of cost to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. 16. List after two months in Chamber. ============= Document 1 “पत्रावली पर विभिन्न खण्डों से प्राप्त सूचनाएं भी संà....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... है तथा माल का वास्तविक परिवहन नहीं किया गया है। स्पष्ट है कि आप द्वारा माल की वास्तविक खरीद नहीं की गयी है बल्कि उक्त बोगस फर्मों से आई०टी०सी० का गलत लाभ लेने के उद्देश्य से टैक्स इन्वाइस प्राप्त किये गये हैं। उक्त बोगस फर्मोà¤....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....¤‚ दुरभिसन्धि करके सर्कुलर बिलिंग का कार्य किया जाता है जबकि वास्तविक संव्यवहार अर्थात माल का वास्तविक संचरण नहीं किया जाता है। प्रथम दृष्टया ही आप द्वारा जानबूझकर सुनियोजित तरीके से केवल करावंचन के उद्देश्य से आई०टी०सी० का ....