Valid service of notice and hearing are essential before cancelling registration, making ex parte assessments, or rejecting eligibility.

Cancellation of a registration certificate and related revisional orders were invalid because notice of hearing was not duly served under the applicable service rules and no real opportunity of hearing was given; postal endorsements alone were insufficient, and the cancellation was unsupported by reliable evidence of discontinuance of business. The ex parte assessment orders were also unsustainable because proper notice had not been served and the assessments were not based on material or reasoned application of mind required for a valid best judgment assessment. Once the cancellation order failed, the rejection of the eligibility certificate could not stand and was also set aside, with fresh proceedings directed after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of registration certificate and the connected revisional orders were valid in the absence of proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether the ex parte assessment orders and rejection of the eligibility certificate could be sustained in law.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of registration certificate and the connected revisional orders were valid in the absence of proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that notice of the next date of hearing had not been duly served in the manner required by rule 278 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Postal endorsements such as left or firm closed were not treated as sufficient service, and the authority had not shown that the prescribed modes of service, including affixture after exhausting other methods, were followed. The cancellation was also not supported by reliable evidence of discontinuance of business.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration certificate and the connected revisional orders were illegal and were set aside. The matter was directed to be reheard after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte assessment orders and rejection of the eligibility certificate could be sustained in law.

Analysis: The Tribunal found no evidence that proper notice of hearing had been served before the ex parte assessments. It further held that the assessments were not based on material or reasoned application of mind, and therefore did not satisfy the standard of a valid best judgment assessment. The rejection of the eligibility certificate, being founded on the cancelled registration order, could not survive once that cancellation was set aside.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment orders and the rejection of the eligibility certificate were unsustainable and were set aside, with directions for fresh assessment and reconsideration of the eligibility certificate after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal granted relief to the petitioner by invalidating the impugned cancellation, assessment, and rejection orders, and by directing fresh proceedings in accordance with law after due hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative tax orders affecting rights must be preceded by valid statutory service of notice and a real opportunity of hearing, and an ex parte assessment must rest on material and reasoned application of mind to qualify as a lawful best judgment assessment.

---