The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for revocation of registration cancellation by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax and the dismissal of their appeal by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner claimed to be a registered Proprietorship firm operating in accordance with the Act and Rules, but a survey conducted by the department found that the firm was not existing/running from the registered place. The department alleged that the firm was availing fake ITC credit from bogus firms and cancelled their registration. The court found that the department had erred in their decision as being a bogus firm is not a ground for cancellation under Section 29(2) and the appellate order was equally flawed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
Source Taxguru
Latest Posts in "India"
- AAR Rules GST Applies to Small Packaged Shrimp Exports, Citing Retail Packaging Criteria
- Supreme Court to Decide if Leasehold Rights Transfer is Taxable Under GST Law
- Only Entity Named as Exporter in Customs Documents Can Claim Service Tax Refund: CESTAT
- CESTAT: Testing Services to Foreign Clients Qualify as ‘Export of Services’ under FTDR Act
- CESTAT Rules Dell India’s Services to Foreign Affiliates Qualify as Export, Allows Appeal
