1992 (7) TMI 311 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper opportunity to show cause against the proposed cancellation of registration.
2. Compliance with the rules for service of notice under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of the term "due notice" under Section 7(4)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner's Central Sales Tax (CST) registration was cancelled due to a delay in filing a revision against the cancellation order. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, arguing that he was not given a proper opportunity to show cause. The petitioner contended that the notice of cancellation was affixed to the business premises, even though the authorities were aware of his residential address. The petitioner relied on Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, which requires notice to be sent to the residential address before resorting to affixing it at the business premises. The court agreed with the petitioner's interpretation, emphasizing that "due notice" under Section 7(4)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act requires compliance with Rule 52 for service of notice.

The court analyzed Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, emphasizing the importance of sending notice to the residential address before resorting to affixture at the business premises. The court highlighted the specific clauses of the rule, noting that notice should be sent by registered post to the residential address if the dealer cannot be served at the business address. The court clarified that the term "address" in the rule refers to the residential address when the assessing authority is aware of it. Failure to comply with the rule regarding service of notice can vitiate the cancellation order, as it deprives the dealer of "due notice" as required by the Central Sales Tax Act.

Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the cancellation of the petitioner's registration. The court directed the authorities to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing an opportunity to show cause against the cancellation. The court emphasized the importance of following the proper procedures for service of notice and giving the petitioner a fair chance to represent his case. No costs were awarded in this matter, and the respondents were instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law after providing the petitioner with a sufficient opportunity to make representations.