Cancellation of VAT registration must be communicated; withdrawal before proved notice defeats an uncommunicated cancellation order.

A dealer's withdrawal of a cancellation request prevailed because no reliable material showed that a cancellation order had been passed and communicated before the withdrawal. Under the Gujarat VAT registration scheme, cancellation may arise on the dealer's application or on statutory grounds, but an undated, uncommunicated order could not defeat a later valid withdrawal. The court also held that communication of the cancellation order was necessary even where cancellation was sought by the dealer, since publication requirements and practical fairness demanded notice to avoid confusion. The cancellation and Tribunal orders were set aside, and registration was to be treated in line with the withdrawal application.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order cancelling registration under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 remained valid when the dealer had withdrawn the earlier application for cancellation before the cancellation order was communicated. (ii) Whether an order cancelling registration under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 must be communicated to the dealer even where the cancellation is made on the dealer's own application.

Issue (i): The statutory scheme under Section 27 recognises cancellation on the dealer's application under sub-sections (2) and (3), cancellation by the authority on specified grounds under sub-section (1), and the deeming rule under sub-section (4) that makes registration inoperative from the relevant date of discontinuance. On the facts, there was no reliable material to show that a cancellation order had in fact been passed and communicated before the dealer withdrew the earlier application. An undated order, without proof of prior communication, could not defeat the later withdrawal.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was not sustained against the dealer because the withdrawal preceded any proved communication of the cancellation.

Issue (ii): Although no express opportunity of hearing is contemplated when the dealer himself applies for cancellation, the statutory framework under Section 27(11) requires publication of the cancellation particulars, and practical fairness requires communication of the order to avoid confusion and disputes. The absence of communication, especially where website records still showed the dealer as registered, could not validate the impugned cancellation.

Conclusion: Communication of the cancellation order was necessary and the uncommunicated cancellation could not be treated as valid against the dealer.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the Tribunal's order and the cancellation order were set aside, and the registration was directed to be treated in accordance with the dealer's withdrawal application.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer's withdrawal of an application for cancellation precedes any proved communication of the cancellation order, the cancellation cannot be upheld, and an order cancelling registration must be communicated even when the cancellation originates from the dealer's own application.

---