TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and an assessee on the files of the respondent. The respondent had issued a certificate of registration, on December 12, 2008, bearing TIN No. 33582764515, under the Tamil Nadu V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 5,25,000, for the year 2008-09, and ₹ 9,53,900, for the year 2009-10. However, the respondent had once again issued a notice in the month of March, 2011, proposing to cancel the registration certificate of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not filed the annual return in form I-1, for the year 2009-10, as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 4. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted the claim of the petitioner that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Further, it is seen from the available records that no reasons have been stated in the impugned order of the respondent cancelling the registration of the petitioner. Further, the impugned order had been passed by the respondent cancell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s such, the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the respondent to cancel the registration of the petitioner, as per law, after issuing an appropriate notice and by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs. Consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
