ORDER : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the “VAT Act, 2003”) at the instance of Commissioner of Commercial Tax and it is directed against the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short the “Tribunal”) in Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018. 2. The appellant has proposed following questions as substantial questions of law arising out of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal:- “5(a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in deciding the Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018 by restoring the lump sum cancellation order with effect from 01.04.2015. (b) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in not considering the provision of Section 14D read with Rule 28(C)(7) under its true perspective.” 3. The facts giving rise to this appeal are summerized as under:- 3.1 The respondent is having a Restaurant and is registered under the VAT Act, 2003. The respondent was also granted permission for composition of tax under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003. 3.2 The surprise visit was conducted on 17.10.2017 at the premises of the respondent by the officers of the appellant, wherein no irregularities were noticed. 3.3 Once again, the business premises of the respondent were visited on 12.02.2018 by the officers of the appellant and retracting files from impounded hard disks, dispute regarding certain transactions which were alleged as not recorded in the regular books of the account of the respondent was raised. 3.4 On insistence of making payment towards tax, the respondent deposited Rs.10,79,902/- on 15.02.2018 and Rs.5,33,997/- on 16.02.2018. Thus, respondent deposited Rs.16,13,899/- even before any order of demand for tax, interest or penalty being passed by the Assessing Officer. 3.5 Thereafter, the respondent was served with notices for assessment as well as for cancellation of its permission for composition granted under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003. 3.6 On primary verification, the State Tax Officer suggested that the respondent should deposit tax at the rate of 4% prescribed for composition under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003 on the transactions suspected as suppressed sales and accordingly, the respondent deposited Rs.5,35,415/- on 18.08.2018 though it was objecting to the proposal of suppressed sale. 3.6 On primary verification, the State Tax Officer suggested that the respondent should deposit tax at the rate of 4% prescribed for composition under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003 on the transactions suspected as suppressed sales and accordingly, the respondent deposited Rs.5,35,415/- on 18.08.2018 though it was objecting to the proposal of suppressed sale. 3.7 Thereafter, on 28.08.2018, order cancelling the permission of composition issued under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003 was passed by the State Tax Officer on the ground that the respondent has suppressed sales during the years 2015-16 to 2017-18 and no explanation in support of it was filed by the respondent. The assessment order for the years 2015-16 to 2016-18 was passed on 19.09.2018. 3.8 The respondent-assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging assessment order and order of cancellation of composition and appeals were summarily dismissed on the ground of pre-deposit amount fixed on 25% of the total dues. 3.9 The respondent, therefore preferred Second Appeal Nos.1556 to 1558 of 2018 before the Tribunal. 4. So far as Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018 is concerned, the same is filed against the order of cancellation of permission of composition under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, held that the permission is canceled with retrospective effect having huge financial implication on the dealer is not fair, reasonable and legal as such order was passed on 28.08.2018 though the assessment orders alleging suppression of sales were passed subsequently on 19.09.2018. The relevant observations of the Tribunal is as under:- “11. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the records before us. It is apparent that suppression of sale is the reason for the cancellation of permission of composition. However, surprisingly the order of canceling of permission for composition was passed on 28.08.2018 though the assessment orders alleging suppression of sales were passed subsequently on 19.09.2018. Considering the above stated facts and reasons, the permission for composition has been cancelled before any decision regarding the suppression of sales was taken. Considering the above stated facts and reasons such pre-judgment in a case where the permission is cancelled with retrospective effect hang huge financial implication on the dealer is not fair, reasonable and legal. 12. Considering the above stated facts and reasons, the permission for composition has been cancelled before any decision regarding the suppression of sales was taken. Considering the above stated facts and reasons such pre-judgment in a case where the permission is cancelled with retrospective effect hang huge financial implication on the dealer is not fair, reasonable and legal. 12. We have also simultaneously heard the Second Appeal Nos.1556 to 1558 of 2018 filed against the summary dismissal of First Appeals against the assessment orders for the aforementioned period. It is noticed by us that the appellant, the appellant had extended cooperation during the course of assessment proceedings. On various occasions, the appellant had appeared for hearing with submission and evidence before the Authority. It also appears that the appellant has made the substantial payment even before any order was passed against it. On perusal of record, it reveals that the last date fixed for hearing, adjournment was sought on the ground of non-availability of its learned consultant. The learned Officer, however, did not grant the adjournment. It also appears from the face of the order of assessment that, the Assessing Authority never bothered to peep into the submission and to make further inquiry with regard to submission made by the appellant for suppressed sales. We have, therefore, decided to allow the Second Appeals against the First Appeal orders summarily rejecting the appeals against the assessment orders by remanding the case to the learned First Appellate Authority for taking the decision on merits. 13. In our view, permission for composition is directly related to the decision regarding liability of the appellant in assessments. The learned Officer had cancelled the permission for composition even before framing the assessment order against the appellant. We believe that the First Appellate Authority was supposed to consider all the aspects before reaching to the conclusion regarding the suppression of sales by the appellant and rejecting the present Second Appeal in case of appellant. According to us, in the circumstances till any decision on assessments is taken if order cancelliing permission for composition is allowed to remain in force it will influence the decision of the learned First Appellate Authority. According to us, in the circumstances till any decision on assessments is taken if order cancelliing permission for composition is allowed to remain in force it will influence the decision of the learned First Appellate Authority. We cannot ignore that the payment made at the rate of 4% on the alleged suppressed sales even before any order was passed against the appellant were made by the appellant, even though there is no written order for such direction therefore, it is very natural that no dealer would make such payment without any indication from the learned Officer. On the other hand, if the learned Officer is directed to take decision relating to cancellation of permission for composition after the decision on assessments is finally taken it will not adversely affect the revenue.” 6. The Tribunal, therefore, passed order allowing Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018 by quashing the order of cancelling the permission for composition of tax and the matter was restored to the State Cancellation Officer by giving liberty to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The operative part of the order of the Tribunal reads thus:- “Second Appeal No.1559 of 2018 is allowed. The order of cancelling the permission for composition and the First Appeal order confirming the same are hereby quashed and set aside, lump-sum permission of appellant under Section 14D is hereby restored with effect from 01.04.2015. The learned Cancellation Officer is at liberty to take appropriate decision as per law regarding composition permission of appellant after the appellant authorities finally decide the liabiity and case of the appellant for assessment period 2015-16 to 2017-18 under VAT Act. There is no order as to costs.” 7. Heard Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that as per the provisions of Section 14D of the Act once the notice is issued, there is no time limit prescribed for passing an order for cancellation of the permission for composition of tax. The Cancelling Officer of the appellant passed the order dated 28.08.2018, as the respondent did not submit any information or explanation pursuant to the notice issued under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003. The Cancelling Officer of the appellant passed the order dated 28.08.2018, as the respondent did not submit any information or explanation pursuant to the notice issued under Section 14D of the VAT Act, 2003. It was, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has committed error by holding that the order of canceling the permission for composition of tax could not have been passed even before framing the assessment order against the respondent. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly quashed and set aside the order of canceling the permission for composition of tax on the ground that unless and until the authority comes to a conclusion that there is a suppression of sales by the respondent-assessee, then no order could have been passed for cancelling the composition of tax. 10. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and in view of the finding of facts arrived at by the Tribunal, more particularly Paragraph Nos.11 to 13 as quoted herein above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion by quashing and setting aside the order of cancellation of the permission of composition of tax and restoring the matter to the Cancelling Officer with a liberty to take appropriate decision as per law regarding permission for composition after the appellant authority finally decide the liability and the case of the assement for the year 2016-2017-2018 under the VAT Act, 2003. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal, therefore, fails and stands disposed of.