Court rules cancellation of registration without hearing as arbitrary and illegal. Order set aside for lack of reasons.

The Court held that the cancellation of registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing was arbitrary and illegal. The cancellation with retrospective effect was deemed unauthorized, as reasons were not provided in the order. Relying on established principles, the Court set aside the impugned order, citing the requirement for notice and an opportunity of personal hearing before cancellation. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs awarded.

---

---

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.

---