9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1319 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of Natural Justice - Cancellation of registration certificate - grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. - Held that - both the notice and impugned order were passed on one and the same day. I do not think that the respondent is justified in indulging in such mechanical action, whatever may be the reason for such cancellation - Needless to say that before cancelling the registration based on certain reasons, the respondent must call upon the petitioner to show cause as to why such action should not be taken, by specifically indicating the reasons for such proposed action - petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Cancellation of Registration Certificate by the respondent without issuing a notice to the petitioner 2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act and Central Sales Tax Act, challenged the order of the respondent cancelling their registration certificate due to non-payment of taxes. The petitioner contended that the respondent did not issue any notice before passing the impugned order, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. 2. The court observed that although the respondent indicated in the order that a notice was issued, the date mentioned for the notice coincided with the date of passing the order. This raised doubts about the genuineness of the notice issuance process. The court emphasized that before cancelling registration, the respondent must provide an opportunity for the petitioner to respond and justify their actions. However, in this case, the impugned order was passed without a hearing, infringing upon the principles of natural justice. 3. The court held that the respondent's actions were unjustified and lacked proper procedural adherence. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The respondent was given the option to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, provided the due procedures were strictly followed as per the law. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, concluding the case.
|
