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"
- Supreme Court to Decide if Industrial Felt is ‘Fabric’ or ‘Machinery Part’ for VAT Purposes
- Supreme Court Rules: “Parts” Must Functionally Integrate into Machinery, Rejecting End-Use Claims
- Centre to Consider Panel’s GST Recommendations on Air Purifiers, Tells Delhi High Court
- Sunglasses Not Classified as Spectacles, Taxable at Higher 12.5% VAT: Punjab & Haryana HC
- BMW Urges No GST Hike on EVs as Electric Car Sales Surge Over 200% in 2025
