TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elling the registration of the firm, M/s. Santosh Dhaba Exclusive, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"), is illegal on the ground that it was passed without notice to the petitioner. The first and third respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing the writ petition. The impugned order dated March 10, 2010 is an appealable order under the Act. However, as it is the grievance of the petitioner that statutory provisions and rules have been violated in passing the impugned order inasmuch as no notice was given to her and therefore the order is void, we proceed to dispose of the matter on the merits. The circumstances under which the point arises and the respective contentions of the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ters stood thus, the third respondent made an application in form VAT-121 dated March 2, 2010, before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the registration on the ground that the firm was closed with effect from March 1, 2010. The first respondent thereupon issued a notice dated March 3, 2010, for compulsory cancellation in form VAT-125 requesting the dealer-firm to file objections but this notice was served on the third respondent but not on the petitioner as she was, according to the first respondent, not available at the address mentioned in the registration certificate of the firm. The third respondent again filed a letter dated March 6, 2010 informing the first respondent that the business was closed due to his health problems ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quently the cancellation cannot be held to be bad as business is already closed. Sri Sharad Sanghi the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/husband pointed out that the business has been closed due to the health problems of the third respondent and the business losses and the petitioner cannot have any grievance about the cancellation of the VAT registration as she never looked after the business even according to the terms of the partnership. He also pointed out that as the third respondent was the managing partner he rightly applied for cancellation of the registration which was acted upon. Additionally Sri Sanghi pointed out that if the petitioner has any grievance about her alleged rights in the partnership assets she can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... third respondent. It should be noted that rule 14(12) of the Rules says that whenever any order of cancellation is made the VAT dealer shall be given an opportunity of being heard. Further rule 63 of the Rules deals with nomination of responsible person by a VAT dealer in form 560 authorising him/her to sign any returns or any documents or to sign any statements and also to receive any notices and rule 63(2) says that every VAT dealer being a partnership firm, among other entities, shall nominate a person for the purposes of receiving orders and notices. The first respondent or the third respondent are not able to file any document to show that the firm in question nominated the managing partner as person responsible to receive notices on....