Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1111 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Jaylaxmi Microns

2017-06-30

B.N.KARIA, M.R.SHAH

body2017
ORDER : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and as such they arise out of impugned common judgment and order dated 5th January 2016 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, all these writ petitions are decided and disposed of by this common order. 2. All these writ petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the common petitioners i.e. the State of Gujarat questioning the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad [“Tribunal” for short] in Revision Applications No. 10 to 13 of 2015 by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the said Applications preferred by the respondent-dealer and thereby quashed and set-aside the orders passed by the appropriate authority canceling KVIC-2 Certificates retrospectively. 3. Heard learned AGPs appearing for the applicant-State. 4. It is not in dispute that the KVIC-1 certificate which was in favour of the respondent came to be cancelled by the Commercial Tax Officer retrospectively. It is not in dispute that the said Certificate was cancelled in exercise of revisional powers under section 75 of the Value Added Tax Act [for short “the Act”]. Section 75 of the Act provides limitation of three years by the revisional authority to exercise revisional powers. In the present cases, the revisional authority exercised powers after a period of three years i.e. beyond the period prescribed under Section 75 of the Act. 5. Under the circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the Revision Applications preferred by the respondent and has rightly quashed and set-aside the Order passed by the Revisional Authority cancelling the Certificate of entitlement as the revisional authority exercised the powers beyond the period prescribed under Section 75 of the Act. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the revisional authority. 5.1 Even otherwise, even on merits also, the issue is covered against the revenue in light of the decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 22/29.07.2016 passed in Tax Appeal No. 444 of 2015 by which Division Bench has held that the authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the certificate of entitlement retrospectively. 5.2 Under the circumstances and even on merits also, the orders passed by the revisional authority cancelling the certificate of entitlement retrospectively cannot be sustained. 5.2 Under the circumstances and even on merits also, the orders passed by the revisional authority cancelling the certificate of entitlement retrospectively cannot be sustained. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error which calls for interference by this Court. 7. There being no substance in the present group of petitions and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.