RAMKUMAR JAIGOPAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised certain important questions regarding the scope and extent of powers of the statutory authority for passing order of 'suspension' of Registration Certificate and 'cancellation' of Registration Certificate under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (in short' the OVAT Act'). In this writ application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of suspension of Registration Certificate dated 23.11.2005 and the order of cancellation of the Registration Certificate dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur under Annexures -I and 7 to the Writ Petition respectively.

(2.) THE records of the proceedings of suspension as well as cancellation of the Registration Certificate were called for and accordingly, the Learned Counsel for the Revenue produced the original records before us from which the following orders are revealed:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the record of the present case would indicate that while the Registration certificate was suspended on 23.11.2005, pursuant to notice thereof, the Petitioner appeared before the Learned Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax, Sambalpur on 29.11.2005 and produced his purchase register, sale register, stock valuation statement, purchase vouchers, sale bills and approval slips. On the very same day the Petitioner also filed an application before the said authority under Section 30(3) of the OVAT Act praying for restoration of his Registration Certificate. Sri Paikray submits that this application of the Petitioner has not yet been disposed of by the ACST. He further submits that without disposing of the Petitioner's application for restoration under Section 30(3) of the OVAT Act, no order of cancellation under Section 31(5) of the said Act can be legally passed.