2016 (11) TMI 1579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from April 2016 till the date of cancellation - TNVAT Act, 2006 - Held that:- The cancellation is bad in law for more than one reason. Firstly, the impugned order cancels the registration with retrospective effect. Secondly, the petitioner was not given any notice before such cancellation. Thirdly, the reason assigned in the impugned order appears to be factually incorrect, since copies of the e- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... du Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent dated 16.8.2016. 3. The reason assigned by the respondent in the impugned notice is that the petitioner has not filed their monthly returns from April 2016 till the date of cancellation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the e-r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n any notice before such cancellation. Thirdly, the reason assigned in the impugned order appears to be factually incorrect, since copies of the e-returns filed on 15.4.2015 upto May 2016 have been produced before this Court. Fourthly, before cancellation of the registration, Section 39(15) of the said Act mandates an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is hel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X