Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1264 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S V.S. Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who is unable to provide any assistance to the Court as he is not possessed of his file. However, since pleadings are complete and we have perused the same, we are proceeding to decide the matter on merits.
The petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P.G.S.T. Act and is engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel. The petitioner is conducting his business from a rented warehouse/godown situate at C-13, Sector-1, Tala Nagari, Ramghat Road, District Aligarh.
The petitioner was given a show-cause notice dated 04.04.2018 calling upon him as to why his registration may not be cancelled as during the survey, the firm was found to be non-existence and it appeared that the aforesaid godown was being used for the purposes of tax evasion.
In response to the above show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a reply which was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-1, Aligarh on 05.04.2018. In the said reply, the petitioner clearly stated that as on the relevant date, no stock was available in the godown, therefore none representing the firm was present at the time of survey. The owner of the said godown is one Mr. Punit Agrawal resident of Lohiya Nagar, Ghaziabad and that the petitioner had taken the said godown on rent from him w.e.f. 28.07.2017 and that it is responsible for all work or business that has been carried out therefrom w.e.f. the aforesaid date. In respect of the hiring of the said godown, the lease deed was also annexed.
The Assistant Commissioner, Tax, Aligarh vide the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 directed for the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner.
The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition.
Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the aforesaid order is an unreasoned order and has been passed without taking into consideration the reply of the petitioner which was on record.
A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that at one place it states that the order is being passed in reference to the reply of the petitioner, without mentioning the date of the reply and at another place states that the petitioner has not filed any reply to the show-cause notice.
It is also evident from the said order that no reason has been assigned for cancelling the registration of the petitioner. The order does not even states that the reply as submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory.
Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, the respondents accept that the petitioner had filed reply to the show- cause notice and that it is annexure-3 to the writ petition. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the impugned order has been passed on considering the reply of the petitioner.
In view of the averments so made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the respondents accept that a reply was filed by the petitioner and that the impugned order has been passed on consideration of the reply.
However, a closure scrutiny of the matter clearly reveals that the Assistant Commissioner in passing the impugned order has neither considered the reply nor has assigned any reason for cancelling the registration of the petitioner or for holding that the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order impugned is not only non- speaking in nature but stands vitiated for non- consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner. In effect it negates the purpose of issuing a show-cause notice completely.
Accordingly, to our mind, the aforesaid order is not tenable in law. Accordingly, it is hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.10.2018 Nirmal