2013 (12) TMI 1383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... R1 ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner had applied for registration before the respondent, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Accordingly, the respondent had issued the certificate of registration, in favour of the petitioner, with effect from 11.7.2012, by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n stated that the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be set aside for the reason that the said order had been passed, cancelling the registration of the petitioner, with retrospective effect. 4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent had not refuted the claim of the petitioner that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent, without affording an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cellation can be made only after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer. 6. It is also noted that the impugned order is contrary to the principle laid down by this Court, reported in Indo Germa Products Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), 2011 (45) VST 236 (Mad). As such, the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X