1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court sets aside sales tax registration cancellations, orders personal hearing. Respondent to serve notices for objections.</h1> The court found that the sales tax registrations were cancelled without providing the petitioners with a personal hearing as required by law. The ... - Issues Involved:The cancellation of sales tax registrations under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and the retrospective cancellation of registrations.Summary:The main contention raised by the petitioners was that their sales tax registrations were cancelled without a personal hearing, which goes against the provisions of clause (15) of section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. They also argued that the cancellations cannot be done retrospectively. On the other hand, the respondent claimed that the petitioners were not maintaining proper accounts and had not filed monthly returns as required by the law.Upon reviewing the arguments and records, the court found that the registrations were indeed cancelled without giving the petitioners a chance for a personal hearing, as mandated by the law. Additionally, the respondent failed to demonstrate the authority to cancel registrations retrospectively. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders. However, the respondent was given the opportunity to serve notices on the petitioners, allowing them to show cause as to why their registrations should not be cancelled. The petitioners were directed to submit objections and relevant documents, following which the respondent would make a decision after a personal hearing.In conclusion, the writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.