Judgment M.R. Shah, J. 1. Rule. Shri Chintan Dave, learned Additional Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-dealer has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated September 26, 2013 passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in Revision Application No. 59 of 2013, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said revision application confirming the order passed by the first revisional authority-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Audit I, Ahmedabad dated May 28, 2013, by which the first revisional authority, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, revised the order passed by the assessing officer dated December 30, 2010 and raised the demand of Rs. 9,83,465, which, inter alia, includes tax demand of Rs. 1,92,511, interest of Rs. 2,13,418 and penalty of Rs. 2,88,768 levied under section 34(7) and 34(12) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act (for short, "the VAT Act"). That the petitioner-dealer is carrying on business of selling ferrous-non-ferrous metal and is holding registration under the VAT Act. That the petitioner-dealer submitted its returns for the year 2006-07 by working the input-tax credit (hereinafter referred to as "ITC") as under: “2006-2007 ITC under section 11 – on current purchases  - Rs. 6,49,561 Total    – Rs. 6,49,561 VAT payable on sales – (Output)                    – Rs. 8,01,727 Total-VAT payable                                         – Rs. 1,52,166 Vat paid with returns                                       – Rs. 1,52,167 Excess                                                  – Rs. ……..Nil……” It appears that while claiming the aforesaid ITC, the petitioner-dealer shown purchases of Rs. 48,12,825 alleged to have been purchased from one M/s. Lucky Enterprises. The petitioner also produced the bills with respect to purchase of goods alleged to have been purchased from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. Thus, the assessee-dealer claimed Rs. 1,92,513 out of total ITC claimed of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases alleged to have been made from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. 48,12,825 alleged to have been purchased from one M/s. Lucky Enterprises. The petitioner also produced the bills with respect to purchase of goods alleged to have been purchased from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. Thus, the assessee-dealer claimed Rs. 1,92,513 out of total ITC claimed of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases alleged to have been made from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. That the assessing officer passed assessment order dated December 30, 2010 allowing the ITC as claimed by the petitioner-dealer including the purchases made by the petitioner alleged to have been purchased from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. It appears that the registration certificate of M/s. Lucky Enterprises came to be cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006 on the ground that M/s. Lucky Enterprises is not a genuine dealer and had indulged into billing activities only and all the transactions made by M/s. Lucky Enterprises were found to be bogus and non-genuine. 3. That the order passed by the assessing officer allowing the ITC claimed by the petitioner-dealer of Rs. 6,49,561 came to be taken under suo motu revision by the first revisional authority-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Audit 1, Ahmedabad. That the petitioner-dealer was served with the show-cause notice and was called upon to show cause why the ITC claimed by the petitioner-assessee on the purchases made by the petitioner alleged to have been made from M/s. Lucky Enterprises may not be denied/cancelled. That the petitioner appeared before the first revisional authority and produced the bills with respect to purchases made by it and alleged to have been purchased from M/s. Lucky Enterprises and reiterated and contended that the petitioner-dealer had, in fact, purchased the goods from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, for which, bills were submitted and on which the ITC was claimed. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the assessee that the transactions between the petitioner-dealer-assessee and said M/s. Lucky Enterprises were genuine. That by order dated May 28, 2013, the first revisional authority-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Audit 1, Ahmedabad, had revised the order passed by the assessing officer dated December 30, 2010 and raised demand of Rs. 9,83,465, which, inter alia, includes tax demand of Rs. 1,92,511, interest of Rs. 2,13,418 and penalty of Rs. 2,88,768 levied under section34(7) and 34(12) of the VAT Act. That while revising the assessment order, the first revisional authority disallowed the ITC of Rs. 9,83,465, which, inter alia, includes tax demand of Rs. 1,92,511, interest of Rs. 2,13,418 and penalty of Rs. 2,88,768 levied under section34(7) and 34(12) of the VAT Act. That while revising the assessment order, the first revisional authority disallowed the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 claimed by the petitioner-assessee on the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises whose registration certificate was cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006. That while revising the order passed by the assessing officer and raising the aforesaid demand and denying the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, the revisional authority had observed that as all the transactions by M/s. Lucky Enterprises including the transactions between M/s. Lucky Enterprises and the petitioner are found to be bogus and non-genuine and in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises, it has been found that the aforesaid M/s. Lucky Enterprises had not sold any goods to the petitioner-dealer-assessee-M/s. Bhairav Metals, the petitioner-assessee-dealer is not entitled to FTC on the purchases alleged to have been made from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. 4. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the first revisional authority-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Audit 1, Ahmedabad, revising the order passed by the assessing officer dated December 30, 2010 and raising the payment of Rs. 9,83,465 of the VAT Act and disallowing the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases made by the petitioner-assessee-dealer from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, the petitioner-dealer preferred a further revision application before the learned Tribunal and by impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal relying upon its earlier decision in the case of one M/s. Madhav Steel Corporation, has dismissed the said revision application confirming the order passed by the first revisional authority denying the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises whose registration certificate came to be cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006. 5. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the revision application and confirming the order passed by the first revisional authority denying/disallowing the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, the petitioner-dealer/assessee has preferred the present special civil application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. 6,49,561 on the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, the petitioner-dealer/assessee has preferred the present special civil application under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Shri Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that both the first revisional authority as well as the learned Tribunal have materially erred in disallowing the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. "6.1 It is further submitted by Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as such, the first revisional authority as well as the learned Tribunal disallowed the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 claimed by the petitioner-dealer on the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises solely on the ground that the registration certificate of M/s. Lucky Enterprises came to be cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006. 6.2 It is submitted that as such, neither the petitioner was served with the copy of the order in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises cancelling its registration certificate ab initio from February 22, 2006 nor was the petitioner-assessee-dealer was given any opportunity to controvert the findings recorded in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises, more particularly, with respect to the transactions between the petitioner-assessee and M/s. Lucky Enterprises. 6.3 It is submitted that as such, except on the basis of the order passed in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises cancelling the registration certificate ab initio from February 22, 2006, there is no independent finding recorded by the first revisional authority with respect to the transactions/purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. 6.4 It is submitted that as such, there is no independent findings recorded by the revisional authority with respect to the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises considering the material/documents produced by the petitioner. 6.5 It is further submitted by Shri Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that before the assessing officer as well as the first revisional authority, the petitioner did produce voluminous materials to prove the genuineness of the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. 6.5 It is further submitted by Shri Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that before the assessing officer as well as the first revisional authority, the petitioner did produce voluminous materials to prove the genuineness of the purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. It is submitted that both the first revisional authority as well as the learned Tribunal have materially erred in not appreciating the facts that as such, the petitioner did produce the documentary evidences to prove the genuineness of the transactions/purchases made by -the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. 6.6 It is submitted that as such, the first revisional authority disallowed the ITC solely on the ground that in case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises from whom the petitioner made the purchases, its registration certificate has been cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006. However, the petitioner was never served with the copy of the order in case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises, which came to be relied upon by the first revisional authority and on the basis of which only, the first revisional authority disallowed the ITC claimed by the petitioner. It is submitted that therefore, the order passed by the first revisional authority can be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice and therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the revision application preferred by the petitioner and ought to have set aside the order passed by the first revisional authority and ought to have restored the order passed by the assessing officer. Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company reported in [1998] 109 STC 439 (SC) as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Giriraj Sales Corporation v. State of Gujarat reported in [2002] 125 STC 369 (Guj), it is requested to allow the present special civil application." 7. Present application is vehemently opposed by Shri Dave, learned Additional Government Pleader. Present application is vehemently opposed by Shri Dave, learned Additional Government Pleader. "7.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Chintan Dave, learned Additional Government Pleader, that as all the transactions by M/s. Lucky Enterprises including the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Lucky Enterprises were found to be bogus and non-genuine and it was found that as such, there was no sale of any goods by M/s. Lucky Enterprises and consequently, registration certificate of M/s. Lucky Enterprises came to be cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006 and the petitioner claimed the ITC on the purchases alleged to have been made from the said M/s. Lucky Enterprises during the aforesaid period, the first revisional authority had rightly disallowed the ITC claimed by the petitioner-dealer on the purchases alleged to have been made from M/s. Lucky Enterprises and the learned Tribunal has rightly confirmed the order passed by the first revisional authority disallowing the aforesaid ITC. 7.2 It is further submitted that, as such, in identical facts and circumstances of the case, in the case of one M/s. Madhav Steel Corporation, the learned Tribunal disallowed the ITC on the purchases made from a dealer whose registration certificate came to be cancelled ab initio and the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of M/s. Madhav Steel Corporation (supra) has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this court and also by the honourable Supreme Court. 7.3 It is submitted that therefore, when in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises, all the transactions made by M/s. Lucky Enterprises were found to be bogus and not genuine and it was found that M/s. Lucky Enterprises was not genuine dealer at all, but was indulging into billing activities only and consequently, the transactions between M/s. Lucky Enterprises and the petitioner were also found to be bogus and non-genuine, the petitioner was not entitled to any ITC on the purchases alleged to have been purchased/made from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. It is submitted that as such, there was no movement of goods alleged to have been purchased from M/s. Lucky Enterprises by the petitioner-dealer. It is submitted that as such, there was no movement of goods alleged to have been purchased from M/s. Lucky Enterprises by the petitioner-dealer. It is submitted that merely because, the dealer produced the bills, vouchers, weigh bills and/or even the dealer might have alleged to have been paid the amount by cheques, those are not sufficient to prove and establish the genuineness of the transactions/purchases unless and until the actual movement of goods from the place of the seller to the place of a dealer/purchaser is established and proved. In support of his submissions, Shri Dave, learned Additional Government Pleader has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in case of Madhav Steel Corporation v. State of Gujarat [2014] 72 VST 318 (Guj) in Tax Appeal No. 742 of 2013 and allied matters. It is further submitted that therefore, merely because, the petitioner produced the bills, vouchers and/or weigh receipts, the genuineness of the purchase is not established and proved. It is submitted that all those evidences can be created and/or even got up. It is submitted that therefore, to prove the genuineness of the transactions/purchases along with above materials/evidences, even actual movement of goods is required to be established and proved, which in the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish and prove. 7.4 It is further submitted by Shri Dave, learned Additional Government Pleader that in the present case, even the alleged seller M/s. Lucky Enterprises had not paid any tax as in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises, it has been established and proved that M/s. Lucky Enterprises had not paid any tax on the goods sold by it including the goods alleged to have been sold by M/s. Lucky Enterprises to the petitioner and therefore, when the seller-M/s. Lucky Enterprises had not paid the tax, there is no question of any ITC for which the tax has not been paid at all by the seller. It is submitted that therefore, also, the petitioner-dealer/assessee is not entitled to the ITC on the purchases alleged to have been made/purchased by M/s. Lucky Enterprises. It is submitted that therefore, also, the petitioner-dealer/assessee is not entitled to the ITC on the purchases alleged to have been made/purchased by M/s. Lucky Enterprises. However, he is not in a position to dispute and/or disputing that when the first revisional authority and/or when the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order, the petitioner-dealer was not served with the copy of the order in case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises cancelling its registration certificate ab initio with effect from February 22, 2006, which is now available with the petitioner. 7.5 Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision in case of Suresh Trading Company [1998] 109 STC 439 (SC) and the decision of the Division Bench of this court in case of Giriraj Sales Corporation [2002] 125 STC 369 (Guj) are concerned, it is submitted by Shri Dave, learned Additional Government Pleader, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid two decisions shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is submitted that in none of the decisions, it is held that even if the dealer/purchaser has failed to establish and/or prove the actual movement of the goods, solely on the basis of the bills/vouchers, etc., the dealer is entitled to the ITC. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in case of Madhav Steel Corporation [2014] 72 VST 318 (Guj), it is requested to dismiss the present petition." 8. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length. We have gone through and considered the order passed by the assessing officer; order passed by the first revisional authority as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. 8.1 That the assessing officer allowed the ITC claimed by the petitioner-dealer on the purchases made by the petitioner alleged to have been made from one M/s. Lucky Enterprises. That in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the first revisional authority disallowed the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 claimed by the petitioner-dealer on the purchases made by it from one M/s. Lucky Enterprises and the said order has been confirmed by the learned Tribunal. That in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the first revisional authority disallowed the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 claimed by the petitioner-dealer on the purchases made by it from one M/s. Lucky Enterprises and the said order has been confirmed by the learned Tribunal. 8.2 From the order passed by the first revisional authority as well as from the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, it appears and it is not in dispute that the first revisional authority disallowed the ITC of Rs. 6,49,561 claimed by the petitioner-dealer on the purchases alleged to have been made/purchased from M/s. Lucky Enterprises on the ground that the registration certificate in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises has been cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006 and the transactions/purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises are during the interregnum period. That while disallowing the ITC to the petitioner on the purchases from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, the first revisional authority has observed that the registration certificate in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises has been cancelled ab initio from February 22, 2006 by observing and holding that all the transactions by M/s. Lucky Enterprises are bogus and not genuine and that said M/s. Lucky Enterprises indulged in billing activities only and therefore, even the transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Lucky Enterprises are also bogus and non-genuine. To some extent, the first revisional authority can be said to be justified in drawing inference and/or in holding so and/or presuming so. However, the petitioner-dealer-purchaser was required to be served with the order in case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises cancelling its registration certificate ab initio and the findings recorded by the appropriate authority in case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises holding the transactions by M/s. Lucky Enterprises including the transaction with the petitioner-dealer as bogus and non-genuine and the finding recorded that M/s. Lucky Enterprises had indulged into the billing activities only. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner-dealer-purchaser and confronting it with the findings recorded by the appropriate authority cancelling the registration certificate ab initio in case of seller-M/s., Lucky Enterprises, the claim of the purchaser like the petitioner-dealer of the ITC on the purchases made from such seller, whose registration certificate has been cancelled ab initio on the ground that such seller had indulged into billing activities only, is required to be considered. However, an opportunity is required to be given to such dealer/purchaser to prove the genuineness of the transaction and/or to justify its claim of ITC. In the present case, the first revisional authority had disallowed the ITC claimed of Rs. 6,49,561 on the purchases alleged to have been made from M/s. Lucky Enterprises relying upon the order passed by the appropriate authority in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises cancelling its registration certificate ab initio from February 22, 2006 and the finding recorded by M/s. Lucky Enterprises ab initio from February 22, 2006 that the transactions by M/s. Lucky Enterprises are bogus and non-genuine. However, the petitioner-dealer was not served with the copy of the order in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises cancelling its registration certificate ab initio from February 22, 2006. 8.3 Now, so far as the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner produced necessary documentary evidence such as bills, vouchers, weigh bills/slips and the payments were made by cheques and therefore, the first revisional authority ought not have disallowed the ITC is concerned, as such, it cannot be accepted. As held by the Division Bench of this court in case of Madhav Steel Corporation [2014] 72 VST 318 (Guj) in which the Division Bench of this court had also considered the decision in case of Giriraj Sales Corporation [2002] 125 STC 369 (Guj), that while claiming ITC on the purchases made by a dealer, a dealer is also required to prove and establish the actual movement of goods and is required to prove the genuineness of the transaction and then and then only, the ITC can be allowed. Therefore, along with such documents like bills, vouchers, weigh bills/slips, etc., a dealer is also required to prove and establish the actual movement of goods from the place of the seller to the place of the purchaser by leading cogent evidence and mere production of the bills, vouchers, etc., is not sufficient to claim the ITC. Therefore, along with such documents like bills, vouchers, weigh bills/slips, etc., a dealer is also required to prove and establish the actual movement of goods from the place of the seller to the place of the purchaser by leading cogent evidence and mere production of the bills, vouchers, etc., is not sufficient to claim the ITC. 8.4 As observed earlier, the impugned order has been passed by the adjudicating authority denying the ITC claimed by the petitioner on the alleged purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises on the ground that the registration certificate of M/s. Lucky Enterprises-seller has been cancelled ab initio on the ground that the seller had involved into the billing activities only and all the transactions by M/s. Lucky Enterprises are held to be bogus. The petitioner has been denied the ITC on the ground of the aforesaid activities/alleged transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Lucky Enterprises. However, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner was not served with the copy of the order in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises. Now, the copy of the order passed in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises is available with the petitioner. Therefore, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner with respect to observations made in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises insofar as the alleged transactions between the petitioner and M/s. Lucky Enterprises and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the transaction between the petitioner and M/s. Lucky Enterprises in light of the observations made hereinabove, therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for ITC on the alleged purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. 8.5 While passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated and considered the aforesaid aspect. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside on the aforesaid ground alone and the matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the petitioner of ITC on the alleged purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises. In light of the observations made hereinabove and for the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds in part. In light of the observations made hereinabove and for the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds in part. The orders passed by the authorities below impugned in the present petition are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for ITC claimed on the alleged purchases made by the petitioner from M/s. Lucky Enterprises after giving an opportunity to the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and on merits in light of the observations made hereinabove. However, it is made clear that there is no question of now allowing and/or permitting the petitioner to lead fresh evidence as it will tantamount to afterthought. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order. It is made clear that the impugned orders are set aside solely on the ground that they were found to be in breach of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the petitioner-dealer was not served with the copy of the order in the case of M/s. Lucky Enterprises, the basis of which the ITC has been denied. It is also made clear that this court has not expressed anything on merits in favour of the petitioner-dealer with respect to genuineness of the transactions alleged to be between the petitioner and M/s. Lucky Enterprises. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. In Favour of Assessee/Department.