Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 941 (GUJ)

RAJENDRA AND CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2021-10-13

RAJENDRA M.SAREEN, SONIA GOKANI

body2021
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court making a grievance of non-providing copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of VAT, whereby the registration of the petitioner firm has been cancelled and prayed to declare the same to be void ab-intio. Pursuant to the said order, order also came to be passed by the respondent No.3 on 24.03.2020 under section 313(4) of the Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner after realizing that there is order operating against the department, the petitioner made an application under RTI. He repeatedly requested for copy of the order passed against him. The petitioner has also taken legal expert advise and inquired about the order being passed by the respondent department. According to him, he has made endeavours which were available at his command, however, copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (VAT) whereby registration of petitioner’s firm was cancelled and the petitioner also made a request for providing copy of the order. Being aggrieved by the non-response on the part of the respondent authority, the petitioner is before this Court with the following main prayers:- “13(A)Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition; (B) Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to provide the copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of VAT cancelling the registration number 24072203696 of petitioner’s firm Rajendra and Co. and has been declared void ab-initio, pursuant to which the order dated 24/3/2014 came to be passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (IV), Ghatak-19 Ahmedabad under sec.31(3) and 31(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003.” 2. On the issuance of notice, we requested Ms.Mauna Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel to assist the cause. Noticing that the dispute is in relation to non-availment of the copy of the order, which is impugned, as requested of making available copy of the order, obviously cannot be termed as unreasonable demand, in fact, it is the right of the petitioner to get copy of the order. Delayed request also will not matter. Noticing that the dispute is in relation to non-availment of the copy of the order, which is impugned, as requested of making available copy of the order, obviously cannot be termed as unreasonable demand, in fact, it is the right of the petitioner to get copy of the order. Delayed request also will not matter. Noticing the chronology of events and periodical reminders for the same, this petition is being disposed of by directing the respondent authority to provide copy of the order ex-parte passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department cancelling the registration number of the petitioner bearing No. 24072203696. Let the same be provided within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Soft copy of the same also shall be additionally furnished of the said order to the petitioner on e-mail ID the petitioner being jitendrasundesha05@gmail.com. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.