2015 (3) TMI 1392 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of registration certificate with retrospective effect - HELD THAT - In similar circumstances in the case of M/S. VIJAY SHREE METALS VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) BROADWAY ASSESSMENT CIRCLE CHENNAI-101 2015 (3) TMI 1216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT it has been held that the registration certificates are to be activated. The respondent is directed to restore the registration certificate of the petitioner forthwith on production of a copy of this order - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:

1. Cancellation of registration certificate with retrospective effect.
2. Jurisdiction and authority of law in passing the impugned order.
3. Similarity to a previous case where the order was quashed.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to challenge the cancellation of their registration certificate with retrospective effect by the respondent. The petitioner argued that such cancellation was contrary to Section 39(14) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as there was no enabling provision for retrospective cancellation. The petitioner contended that the respondent's actions were arbitrary and illegal, warranting the quashing of the cancellation order.

Issue 2: The petitioner asserted that the respondent's proceedings were without jurisdiction and authority of law. It was argued that the cancellation of the registration certificate was not supported by any legal basis, making the impugned order liable to be quashed. The court observed that the respondent had acted beyond their legal authority in canceling the registration certificate retrospectively, leading to the order being deemed illegal and in violation of the Act.

Issue 3: The court noted the similarity of the present case to a previous judgment where a similar order was quashed by the court. Referring to the case of M/s.Vijaya Shree Metals vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), the court found that the relief sought in the current writ petition aligned with the decision in the previous case. Consequently, the court relied on the precedent set by the earlier judgment and quashed the impugned order dated 12.01.2015, directing the respondent to restore the petitioner's registration certificate immediately upon production of the court's order.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that the respondent must adhere to the legal provisions under Section 39(14) of the Act if initiating any proceedings against the petitioner in the future. The court's decision highlighted the importance of jurisdiction, legal authority, and adherence to statutory provisions in administrative actions, ultimately leading to the restoration of the petitioner's registration certificate.