Natural justice requires hearing before cancellation of registration, and appeals must be decided on the real record.

Cancellation of a registration certificate under section 7(4) could not be made without affording the dealer a fair opportunity of hearing, because the order directly prejudiced business rights and livelihood and natural justice applied despite the absence of an express notice provision. The existence of a hearing requirement elsewhere in the Act did not justify excluding it in this context. The appellate authority also erred in dismissing the appeals on the technical ground that the cancellation order was not before it, since it could have called for the departmental record or allowed time to produce the material. The cancellation and appellate dismissal were therefore quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh after hearing the petitioners.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration certificates could be cancelled under section 7(4) without giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard; (ii) Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeals without securing the material on which cancellation was based.

Issue (i): Whether registration certificates could be cancelled under section 7(4) without giving the dealer an opportunity of being heard.

Analysis: Cancellation of a registration certificate adversely affects the dealer's business and means of livelihood. Even though section 7(4) did not expressly provide for notice or hearing, the governing principle of natural justice required that no order to the detriment of a subject be made without affording an opportunity to be heard. The presence of a hearing provision in another part of the Act did not justify reading an intention to exclude hearing in this context.

Conclusion: The cancellation under section 7(4) could not validly be made without giving the dealer a fair opportunity of hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeals without securing the material on which cancellation was based.

Analysis: The appeals were dismissed because the earlier order of cancellation was not before the appellate authority. The authority could have allowed time to obtain the missing order or called for the departmental file to examine the basis of cancellation. Dismissing the appeals on a purely technical ground, without examining the substance of the challenge, denied fair hearing at the appellate stage as well.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeals on that technical ground was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation and the appellate dismissal were quashed, and the matter was left open to be proceeded with afresh after hearing the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order under a taxing statute substantially prejudices a person's business rights, a fair opportunity of hearing is required unless expressly and validly excluded, and appellate proceedings must be decided on the real material rather than on a technical absence of records.

---