@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honorable Mr. Justice M. Jaichandren
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that a show cause notice, dated 23.12.2011, issued by the second
respondent, had been received by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had also sent a detailed reply, dated 10.01.2012, to the second
respondent, to the show cause notice, dated 23.12.2011. However, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, on 10.01.2012,
which had been received by the second respondent, on 13.01.2012, he had passed the impugned order, dated 11.01.2012, canceling the
registration of the petitioner.
3. It had also been submitted that no personal hearing had been given to the petitioner before the impugned order, dated 11.01.2012, had been
passed by the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had further submitted that the second respondent has
no power or authority to cancel the registration of the petitioner, retrospectively.
4.The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the petitioner had shifted its place of business,
without informing the respondents. However, a notice, dated 23.12.2011, had been served on the petitioner. The petitioner had also submitted a
detailed reply, dated 10.01.2012, which had been received by the second respondent, on 13.01.2012. However, the impugned order had been
passed by the Second Respondent, on 11.01.2012, since, the reply sent by the petitioner had not been received by the second respondent, within
fifteen days from the date on which the notice, dated 23.12.2011, had been issued.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondent, and on perusal of the
records available, this Court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 11.01.2012. The second
respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 11.01.2012, even before the expiry of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, dated
23.12.2011, by the petitioner. Further, it is also an admitted fact that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner. The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not been in a position to show that the second respondent had the power or authority to
cancel the registration of the petitioner, retrospectively. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
The petitioner shall appear before the second respondent, on 27.02.2012, and participate in the enquiry conducted by the second respondent,
pursuant to which it would be open to the second respondent, to pass further orders, if any, as per law.
