https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168012 Cancellation of VAT registration of a partnership firm was challenged on the ground that the petitioner partner had not been given notice. The rules required an opportunity of hearing before cancellation and also contemplated nomination of a responsible person to receive notices, but no material showed any valid nomination under the relevant rule. Even so, the High Court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is not invoked automatically for a procedural lapse, particularly where the business had already closed and civil remedies remained available in relation to partnership rights. The cancellation order was therefore not interfered with, and the writ petition failed. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168012 Cancellation of VAT registration of a partnership firm was challenged on the ground that the petitioner partner had not been given notice. The rules required an opportunity of hearing before cancellation and also contemplated nomination of a responsible person to receive notices, but no material showed any valid nomination under the relevant rule. Even so, the High Court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is not invoked automatically for a procedural lapse, particularly where the business had already closed and civil remedies remained available in relation to partnership rights. The cancellation order was therefore not interfered with, and the writ petition failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168012