IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.07.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.10502 of 2013

and

M.P.No.2 of 2013

M/s.Steel House,

Rep., by its Proprietor,

Aashish Khandelwal,

No.432-3, Kali Gounder Kadu,

Kalarampatti Road, Salem-15.

.. Petitioner

-vs-

The Assistant Commissioner (CT)(FAC),

Salem Town West Circle,

Salem.

.. Respondent

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the

impugned proceedings of the respondent in TIN: 33312823494 dated

22.02.2013, quash the same as illegal and violative of the

principles of natural justice as provided under Section 39(15)

of the TNVAT Act, 2006.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Rajasekar

For Respondent :

Mr.V.Veluchamy

Government Advocate

******

ORDER

The order passed by the respondent, cancelling the

registration certificate, in proceedings dated 22.02.2013, is

under challenge in the present writ petition.

2.The petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s.Steel House. The

petitioner is a dealer in iron and steel and was registered

under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter

referred to as "the TNVAT Act").

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the impugned

order of cancellation of registration certificate was issued

without providing opportunity as contemplated and thus, the

order impugned is in violation of the principles of natural

justice. The facts, at this juncture, need no further

adjudication, as the petitioner has raised the ground of

violation of principles of natural justice.

4.Admittedly, a notice dated 01.02.2013 was issued directing

the petitioner to submit their objections within a period of 15

days.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

said notice was received by the petitioner on 15.02.2013 and

before submitting objections, the impugned order was passed in

proceedings dated 22.02.2013 within a period of one week. This

apart, the subsequent notice issued by the respondent, seeking

explanation

regarding

cancellation

of

registration

certification, was not even received by the petitioner and

therefore, the petitioner could not able to submit their

objections/explanation with reference to the allegations set out

in the notice.

6.To substantiate the said ground, the learned counsel

referred to the Circular issued by the Commissioner of

Commercial Taxes dated 20.04.2010, wherein directions are issued

to the competent authority that the final order shall not be

passed on the last date itself fixed to reply, but only after

the next day of the last date fixed. Time granted to file reply

is available up to the end of the working hours of that day. If

the last date fixed for filing reply happens to be a holiday,

the next working day is the last date to file reply. In spite

of the direction issued through the Circular dated 20.04.2001 by

the Commissioner, the respondent issued the notice on

01.02.2013, which was received by the petitioner on 15.02.2013

and passed the impugned order in proceedings dated 22.02.2013.

Thus, the impugned order was passed in violation of the

directions issued by the Commissioner in his circular dated

20.04.2001. This apart, the subsequent notice issued, seeking

explanation regarding cancellation of registration certificate,

was not received by the petitioner.

7.In this regard, the counter filed by the respondent

reveals that action was proposed to cancel the registration

certificate under the statute and a notice was issued on

01.02.2013. The notice was returned by the postal authorities

on 12.02.2013 denoting that "no such addressee". Again the

notice was served by way of affixture on 14.02.2013. As the

petitioner was not available in the place of business, t