9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the respondents (sales tax authorities) in cancelling the registration certificate granted to the petitioner and also claim consequential reliefs. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention infra. 2.. The petitioner is a dealer carrying on business of manufacture and sale of wooden articles under the State Sales Tax as also Central Sales Tax Acts. It appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been cancelled by their order dated October 8, 1992. The Forest Department was asked to take note of this fact and proceed accordingly. It is this action of the respondents (sales tax authorities) which is impugned in this petition. 4.. The State by filing return has tried to support the impugned action. 5.. Heard Shri P.M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner came to know of such proceeding when on October 9, 1992, i.e., next day, the sales tax authorities sent a letter to forest authorities informing them of cancellation of petitioner's certificate by their order dated October 8, 1992. Even in this Court, the respondents have not filed a copy of the so called order dated October 8, 1992. It is, therefore, clear that in fact no order was pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowed. Impugned communication dated October 9, 1992 [annexures P10(1), P10(2) and P11] are quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to hold a proper inquiry and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, and after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner on October 8, 1992 (annexure P9), pass a reasoned order on the issue of cancellation of registration cer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
