TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules cancellation of registration without hearing as arbitrary and illegal. Order set aside for lack of reasons.</h1> <h3>Jana Steels Rep. By Its Proprietor S. Janarthanan Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)</h3> The Court held that the cancellation of registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 without affording the petitioner an opportunity of ... Principle of Natural Justice - Opportunity of personal hearing not given - Cancellation of registration certificate - Cancellation done with retrospective effect - Held That:- Issuing authority is competent to cancel certificate, however sub-section (15) of section 39 of the Act, what is contemplated is a personal hearing. Personal hearing is totally different from show-cause notice. Consequently, though the Department has issued a show-cause notice, that will not amount to granting an opportunity of being heard - Following decision of Indo Germa Products Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) [2011 (9) TMI 530 - Madras High Court] - Decided in favour of appellant. Issues:1. Cancellation of registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.2. Cancellation of registration with retrospective effect.3. Lack of reasons stated in the impugned order for cancelling the registration.4. Authority of the respondent to cancel registration with retrospective effect.Analysis:1. The petitioner applied for registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and was issued a certificate of registration. However, the registration was later cancelled without providing the petitioner with an opportunity of personal hearing, as required by Clauses 14 and 15 of Section 39 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was arbitrary and illegal.2. The impugned order cancelling the registration with retrospective effect was challenged by the petitioner. The respondent did not dispute that the cancellation was done without affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. Furthermore, no reasons were provided in the order for the cancellation, and it was noted that the respondent did not have the authority to cancel the registration retrospectively.3. The Court observed that Clause 14 of Section 39 mandates that registration can only be cancelled based on sufficient reasons, which were absent in the impugned order. Additionally, Clause 15 requires that cancellation can only occur after giving the dealer an opportunity of personal hearing, which was not done in this case.4. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court found that the impugned order contradicted established principles. Citing the case of Indo Germa Products Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner, the Court held that the respondent's order was to be set aside. The writ petition was allowed, with the directive that the respondent could proceed with cancellation as per the law, provided a notice and an opportunity of personal hearing were given to the petitioner. No costs were awarded in this matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
