Statutory authorities possess the inherent power to rectify or cancel amendments to registration particulars if such amendments were obtained through fraud or invalid documentation, as the illegality vitiates the underlying administrative action, notwithstanding the absence of specific statutory provisions for such cancellation.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of Sri.Natarajan, who was conducting a business in the name and style of “MRT Metal Mart”. The said Natarajan passed away on 15.11.2021. The petitioner as well as the 3^rd and 5^th respondents are the sons of the said Natarajan and the 4^th respondent is the wife of the said Natarajan. Dispute involved in this writ petition is in relation to the order passed by the 1^st respondent cancelling the registration of a firm run by the 3^rd respondent and the order of rejection of the application submitted by the 3^rd respondent to revoke the said order of cancellation.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: As mentioned above, Sri.Natarajan was conducting a business namely, “MRT Metal Mart” till he passed away on 15.11.2021. The 3^rd respondent was having a different establishment registered under the CGST and KGST Act in the name and style “Brinda Metal Mart” since 2017. After the death of Sri.Natarajan on 15.11.2021, an application was submitted by the 3^rd respondent before the 1^st respondent, for amending the registration of his business establishment, by substituting the name of the firm M/s.Brinda Metal Mart with M/s MRT Metal Mart, which name was used by the deceased father. The said change of name was allowed on 17.11.2021.

3. Immediately thereafter, a further application was submitted for adding certain business places as well, which belonged to the father of the 3^rd respondent’s establishment . To support the claim for adding additional business places, Exts.P3 and P4 no objection certificates were relied on, by which, the 3^rd respondent was permitted to use the business places referred to therein, for conducting and operating the business of MRT Metal Mart. Ext.P3, which is one of the consent letters, is in the name of Sri.T.Natarajan, the father of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, but the signature thereon was made by the 4^th respondent, the mother of the 3^rd respondent and the writ petitioner. Similarly, in Ext P4 also, the 4^th respondent signed in the name of the said Natarajan. The said documents were executed on 18.11.2021, i.e., after the death of the said Natarajan.

4. The applications submitted for amendment and for incorporating additional business places based on Exts.P3 and P4, were allowed and a fresh registration certificate was issued incorporating all the said amendments. Subsequently, the 1^st respondent, as per Ext.P6, initiated suo motu proceedings for cancellation of the registration of M/s MRT Metal Mart, which originally stood registered in the name of M/s Brinda Metal Mart. The reason stated in Ext.P6 was that, the amendment in the registration particulars was obtained by the 3^rd respondent by means of fraud, willful misstatement and suppression of facts and therefore, registration of the MRT Metal Mart [originally Brinda Metal Mart] has to be cancelled.

5. The petitioner herein approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (c) No.6509 of 2025, seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the representation submitted by him, which was produced as Ext.P3 in the said writ petition. The said representation was submitted in the light of Ext.P6 order passed. This Court passed an interim order as evidenced by Ext.P7 in the said writ petition on 20.03.2025, directing the re