VAT registration cancellation and notice requirements: writ relief refused where Article 226 discretion and alternative civil remedies weighed against interference.

Cancellation of VAT registration of a partnership firm was challenged on the ground that the petitioner partner had not been given notice. The rules required an opportunity of hearing before cancellation and also contemplated nomination of a responsible person to receive notices, but no material showed any valid nomination under the relevant rule. Even so, the High Court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is not invoked automatically for a procedural lapse, particularly where the business had already closed and civil remedies remained available in relation to partnership rights. The cancellation order was therefore not interfered with, and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order cancelling the VAT registration of a partnership firm was liable to be set aside for want of notice to the petitioner partner.

Analysis: The Act treated a partnership firm as a dealer and provided for registration and cancellation of registration. The Rules required an opportunity of hearing before cancellation and also contemplated nomination of a responsible person to receive notices. No material was shown to establish a nomination under the relevant rule. At the same time, the Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and interference is not automatic merely because of a procedural objection, especially where the business had already been closed and the affected party had other remedies in civil law concerning partnership rights.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was not interfered with and the writ petition failed.

---