Writ interference with VAT registration cancellation is limited where factual disputes and statutory remedies remain available.

Cancellation of registration under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax framework was not interfered with in writ jurisdiction where the dispute turned on rival factual claims about lease documents and those facts were already in issue before the civil court. The text notes that cancellation may be made only for good and sufficient reasons, after notice and opportunity of hearing, and that the petitioner had filed objections before the order. It also records that an alternative appellate or revisional remedy existed under the statute, making the civil suits the appropriate forum for resolving the underlying factual controversy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of registration under Section 39(14) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, particularly when disputed questions of fact were pending before the civil court and an alternative statutory remedy was available.

Analysis: The dispute over the lease and supporting documents involved rival factual claims which could not be conclusively examined in writ proceedings. Section 39(14) empowers the registering authority to cancel a registration for good and sufficient reasons, while Section 39(15) requires an opportunity of hearing before such cancellation. The petitioner had been issued notice and had filed objections before the impugned order was passed. The Court also noted that the statute provided an appellate or revisional remedy under Section 54, and that the civil suits pending between the parties were the proper forum for adjudicating the underlying factual controversy.

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

---