COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX Vs. EBNEY SOUD MOHD ASLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated November 11, 1998 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act.

(2.) Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of foodgrains, etc. With the view that the dealer was involved in evasion of tax, vide order, the assessing authority required the dealer to furnish additional security at Rs. 6 lakhs in the form of bank guarantee by March 6, 1998. When such additional security could not be furnished, a notice under Section 8A(1B) of the Act was issued for cancellation of the registration. In pursuance of the said notice, dealer appeared before the assessing authority and sought time, which was allowed and vide order dated March 6, 1998 cancelled the registration. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the additional security was demanded on March 18, 1998. According to the Tribunal, under Section 8A(1B) of the Act order of cancellation could be passed only after expiry of three months while the order of cancellation was passed on March 6, 1998. Hence, the order of cancellation of registration has been held unjustified.

(3.) Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of dealer/opposite party.