M/S ANS HANDICRAFTS Vs. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated March 11, 2019 vide which the registration certificate of the petitioner has been cancelled.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a registered firm engaged in trading of hardware and aluminium goods. It was duly registered under U.P. Goods and Service Tax. A survey was conducted on February 11, 2019 at the business premises of the petitioner wherein 29 loose papers were found. As according to the Department, certain discrepancies were found in the stock, the turn-over of the petitioner was enhanced on the presumption that there were suppressed sales. Notice for assessment was issued under Sec. 74 of U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the period April' 2018 to February' 2019. Huge demand of more than 6 crore was raised. The petitioner preferred appeal, which was finally partially accepted. On the other hand, a notice was issued to the petitioner on February 26, 2019 to show cause as to why the registration certificate of the petitioner be not cancelled. Nothing was mentioned therein as to the reasons for issuing the notice except the generic term "In case, Registration has been obtained by means of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts." Without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as there were no ground mentioned for cancellation of registration, and without assigning any reason, order dated March 11, 2019 was uploaded on the website cancelling the registration of the petitioner. The argument raised is that the notice issued by the Department to the petitioner has to be action oriented giving complete details on the basis of which action is proposed and after due opportunity of hearing, a reasoned order is required to be passed. In the case in hand, both are lacking, hence the order deserves to be set aside. In support of the aforesaid contentions, reliance is placed on Bajrang Trading Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others (2020) UPTC (Vol. 104) 400 and Balaji Enterprises Vs. Principal Additional Director General (2022) 80 MTNDX 448 (Delhi).

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the fact by itself that a survey was carried out at the premises of the petitioner and certain loose papers were recovered on the basis of which assessment was framed clearly establishes that the petitioner was indulging in unaccounted sales and was evading tax. Immediately after the survey, the notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why registration certification of the petitioner be not cancelled. The reasons are well mentioned in the notice. Due opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner which the petitioner failed to avail of and the order of cancellation of certificate was passed. There is no illegality therein.