Court overturns cancellation of registration certificate under TNVAT Act due to procedural violations, emphasizes proper notice and hearing.

The court set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's registration certificate under the TNVAT Act, citing a violation of procedural requirements. The court found that proper notice was not given, and no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided to the petitioner as mandated by the Act. The respondent's claim of serving a notice through affixture was rejected due to lack of evidence. The court directed the respondent to follow due procedure, including issuing a proper notice and granting a personal hearing before taking any further action. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs, and the case was closed.

---

---

Issues:
Cancellation of registration certificate under TNVAT Act without proper notice and opportunity of hearing.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 25.10.2012, which cancelled the petitioner's registration certificate under TNVAT Act. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was contrary to the provisions of the Act and violated principles of natural justice. The respondent claimed that the cancellation was justified as there was no business concern at the petitioner's registered address, and the dealer was not in existence. The cancellation notice was sent but returned by postal authorities, confirming the non-existence of the petitioner at the mentioned address.

The primary contention of the petitioner was the violation of Section 39(14) and (15) of TNVAT Act, 2006, which mandates issuing a notice before cancellation and providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner argued that these requirements were not fulfilled in this case. The respondent, however, claimed that a notice of cancellation was served through affixture on 21.8.2012. The court rejected this claim, stating that the order did not reflect any affixture of notice on the mentioned date, thus questioning the validity of the service through affixture.

The court found a gross violation of the provisions under Section 39(14) and (15) of the TNVAT Act, as there was no proper notice and no opportunity for a personal hearing granted to the petitioner. Additionally, the mode of service as per Rule 19 of TNVAT Rules, 2007 was not followed. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order, allowing the respondent to proceed afresh and pass appropriate orders after following due procedure in accordance with the law. The Writ Petition was allowed without any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---