Cancellation Orders Quashed for Non-Service; Restoration of VAT and CST Registrations Enforced Promptly.

The HC quashed the cancellation orders dated 6th July 2017 due to non-service, rendering them invalid. This decision enabled the enforcement of the restoration order dated 31st December 2019, restoring the petitioner's VAT and CST registration certificates. The court underscored the necessity of proper service of orders and directed the respondent authorities to implement the restoration promptly. The petition was disposed of, and notice was discharged.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking restoration of VAT and CST registration certificates after cancellation due to non-filing of returns. Failure of respondent authorities to implement restoration order. Challenge to the cancellation order dated 6th July 2017 and subsequent restoration order dated 31st December 2019. Dispute regarding the non-service of the cancellation order and its impact on the restoration order.

Analysis:

The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement the Restoration Order dated 31st December 2019 and restore the petitioner's VAT and CST registration certificates. The petitioner also requested to quash the order passed on 6th July 2017 canceling the registration. The petitioner's registrations were canceled due to non-filing of monthly returns, which the petitioner attributed to construction activities at their premises, leading to a lack of office facilities and staff.

Upon receiving the cancellation order, the petitioner filed an appeal, submitted pending returns, and paid the required penalty. The appellate authority subsequently restored the VAT and CST registration certificates on 31st December 2019. However, the respondent authorities failed to implement this restoration despite repeated requests and representations from the petitioner. The petitioner amended the petition to challenge the 6th July 2017 cancellation order, claiming it was never served and thus prevented the implementation of the restoration order.

During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that the existence of the 6th July 2017 cancellation order hindered the implementation of the restoration order. The respondent authorities did not contest this claim and confirmed the status of the cancellation orders on their web portal, acknowledging the lack of service to the petitioner. The court found that since the cancellation order was not served, it could not be considered valid. Consequently, the court quashed the cancellation orders from 6th July 2017, enabling the respondent authorities to give effect to the restoration order dated 30th December 2019 issued by the Deputy State Tax Commissioner.

As a result of the court's decision to quash the cancellation orders, the petition was disposed of, and notice was discharged. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper service of orders and the necessity for respondent authorities to implement valid restoration orders promptly.

---