JUDGMENT :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. This are the group of matters involving identical questions of facts and law and therefore, they are being decided by a common judgment, where the facts are drawn from the Special Civil Application No.21012 of 2019.

2. Brief facts leading to the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follow:

2.1 The petitioner is in the business of trading of various goods such as scraps, confectioneries, cosmetics, tobacco, etc. The respondent No.1 as the Commissioner of the State Tax exercises the jurisdiction under the provision of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘the VAT Act’ hereinafter) and the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the GST Act’ hereinafter).

2.2 The petitioner had local registration and central tax registration as well. During the year under consideration, the petitioner worked out Input Tax Credit on purchases made from registered dealer as per Section 11 of the VAT Act. It had been worked out on sales within the State of Gujarat and sales made outside the State under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

2.3 The petitioner had adjusted the output tax liability against the Input Tax available and submitted its return by working out the said procedure for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.4 A search operation had conducted at the premise of the petitioner, which continued from 24.01.2012 to 01.02.2012. Numerous files were impounded by officers containing purchase and sales bills, LR, Weigh Slips, Transport receipts, etc. for the period 2008 to 2012.

2.5 The assessment proceedings for the year 2008-09 were commenced and notice for audit assessment under Section 34(2) of the VAT Act had been issued on 01.02.2012. It is further averred that on 01.02.2012 the residential house belonging to the mother of the petitioner and a shop were attached under Section 45(1) of the VAT Act. Totally 93 items were impounded and the list of the same had been annexed.

2.6 Notice had been issued in Form 303 for making assessment under Section 35 of the VAT Act and a show cause notice dated 10.07.2012 was issued wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was engaged in billing activities only. The detail of the purchases and the sales were called for otherwise it was proposed that in absence of production of them, the sales made outside Gujarat were to be construed as local sales.

2.7 It appears that another show cause notice dated 20.09.2012 was issued that has been responded too by the petitioner reiterating his submissions that all seized documents have not been released after eight months of the search and unless those details are available with the petitioner, giving of an opportunity will be an empty formality.

2.8 Once again, show cause notice of 01.10.2013 was issued asking the petitioner to remain present with all the details. The petitioner since could not produce the ‘C’ Forms and other details like Form 402, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax raised the demand by treating the entire interstate sale as the local sale.

2.9 This was challenged by preferring First Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Appeal-2, Ahmedabad. The petitioner was asked to pay pre-deposit of 20% of the total demand under the VAT Act and under the CST Act, which the petitioner failed to pay and appeal was summarily dismissed on 17.04.2014. Aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both the sides also had directed on 08.04.2015 the amount of 20% of the total demand to be paid as pre-deposit thereby confirming the directions of the First Appellate Authority.

2.10 The petitioner was not in a position to pay the amount of pre-deposits and had also closed its business and shifted to Rajasthan owing to the fact that, its registration had been cancelled.

2.11 In subsequent assessment years for 2010-11 and 2011-12 the similar orders were passed. It appears that the Appellate Authority for the subsequent assessment years 2010