VAT registration cancellation invalid without Form 104 notice and meaningful hearing; statutory procedure and natural justice must be followed.

Cancellation of VAT registration could not be sustained where the Commissioner failed to issue the notice required by Rule 10(3) in Form 104 before acting under section 27(5) or 27(5A). The materials on record related to a different controversy and did not constitute notice of the proposed cancellation, so the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity to respond. The Court applied the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific mode for exercising power, that mode must be followed, and the omission also breached natural justice. A later opportunity could not cure the initial defect, and the impugned orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether cancellation of registration under the Gujarat Value Added Tax regime could be sustained without issuing the notice contemplated by Rule 10(3) and without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Rule 10(3) requires the Commissioner, when intending to cancel or suspend registration under section 27(5) or section 27(5A), to give notice in Form 104. The record showed that no notice in Form 104, or any equivalent notice communicating the proposed cancellation of registration, was issued before the impugned action. The materials relied upon by the authorities related to a different controversy and did not amount to notice on the specific issue of cancellation of registration. The Court held that when the statute prescribes a particular manner for exercising power, the authority must act in that manner, and the failure to do so also offended the principles of natural justice. A later opportunity could not cure the initial defect.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration could not be sustained and the impugned orders were quashed.

---