S. Kathiresan vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (Registration Cell)

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The Petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Respondent dated

November 9, 2009 whereby the Petitioner''s registration was cancelled both under the Value Added Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales

Tax Act. The order reads that this order does not preclude the Department in proceeding with the completion of the pending assessments,

recovery of tax due, etc., from the dealer. Although the order passed is amenable to revisional jurisdiction, yet, I am constrained to disturb the

order for the following reasons.

The Petitioner herein was visited with an assessment order for the year 2006-07 to 2007-08. Admittedly, the Petitioner had gone on appeal as

against this order. On the ground that the Petitioner is in arrears of tax, the Respondent herein issued a notice dated October 27, 2009 stating that

if the dealer is still allowed to continue his business, the Government would suffer great loss. In order to safeguard the Government''s revenue, the

Respondent herein thought it fit to cancel the registration u/s 12 of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and Section 7(4) of the Central

Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to file his objection on or before November 6, 2009, failing of which, the

registration would be cancelled without further notice. Admittedly on November 6, 2009, the Petitioner filed a request seeking 15 days time for

filing his reply since they have placed the said notice to their legal consultant for giving appropriate reply in this matter. Admittedly, the said letter

seeking adjournment by 15 days was received by the Respondent herein. Surprisingly, on November 9, 2009, the Respondent passed an order

cancelling the registration. A perusal of the said proceedings would go to show that in spite of receipt of the letter seeking 15 days time to file

reply, no order has been passed on the same either rejecting or otherwise, but the Respondent proceeded further on the basis of the notice. In the

absence of any order rejecting the prayer and there being no indication even in the order as regards the said request, rightly the Petitioner had

approached this Court challenging the said order as one in violation of principles of natural justice.

A perusal of the order passed further shows that quite apart from the reasons given as a basis for issuance of a show-cause notice, the order

further refers to yet another reason that the Petitioner had failed to file extract as regards the declaration form C as prescribed under Sub-rule (10)

of Rule 14. A reading of the order thus reveals that more than one reason had resulted in persuading the officer to pass order of cancellation.

Considering the fact that the status as a registered dealer confers certain rights and privilege on the dealer under the Act, in fairness to the rights of

the Petitioner, the Respondent should have intimated about not only the rejection of the request seeking time but also the grounds on which the

proposal is made, so that the Petitioner has the opportunity to rebut the same.

As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, if the order proceeds on the reasons other than those stated in the notice, in

fairness to the claim of the Petitioner, the Respondent should have indicated the same too in the notice. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in

accepting the plea of the Petitioner that the order is passed without observing the principles of natural justice and the same has to be set aside.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent pointed out that the Petitioner is in arrears as stated in the notice. Per

contra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner however pointed out that as per audit statement, the Petitioner had paid more than what had been

demanded. It is not necessary for this Court to go into this disputed facts as to the amount remitted by the Petitioner. However, since the

Petitioner''s case is that he had paid more than the amount demanded and the Respondent insist that the Petitioner is in arrears of tax, it is

necessary that the Petitioner and the Respondent settle the dispute as to the arrears and verify whether the Petitioner had paid in excess. As

already pointed out, this is a matter which the authorities and the Assessee have to settle. As regards the order now impugned, I have no hesitation

in setting aside the same, but this does not mean that the hands of the Respondent are tied. It is open to them to proceed in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.