9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to challenge the order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-18, Varanasi, by which the registration of the petitioner as a dealer under the U.P. G.S.T. Act has been cancelled. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid order is in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the show-cause notice alleged to have been issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2018 was never sent in any proper mode as prescribed under the Act and was not served upon the petitioner. Secondly, it has been contended that only on prima-facie satisfaction that the petitioner is not carrying any business without coming to any final conclusion thereof, the registration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r carried business; or if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it at some conspicuous place, of his last known place of business or residence. It is only if the mode of service as provided in the earlier parts of Section 169 are not practicable that the authorities can resort to service of notice by affixation. In this regard the words "if none of the modes is practicable" are relevant and important. The use of the aforesaid words clearly indicates that it is only after the authorities are satisfied that all earlier methods are not practicable for service of notice that resort can be taken for service of notice by affixation. In the present case, we do not find that the Assistant Commissioner had come to any conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only on the basis of prima-facie opinion and the material on which such a prima-facie opinion was formed has not been indicated. The Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the order on the basis of prima-facie opinion until and unless he was of a definite opinion that the petitioner has closed down the business. A feeble attempt was made by the Special Counsel to sabotage the hearing of the petition on merits on the ground that against the order of cancellation of the registration, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal. Notwithstanding the remedy of appeal, we do not propose to relegate the petitioner to it for the simple reason that the petition was entertained and the parties have completed the pleadings to enable the Court to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
