9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is aggrieved against the proceedings of the respondent dated 04.05.2017 in cancelling the registration of the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally he was running the business in the name of 'Parasakthi Oil Store' and that the petitioner made a request to the respondent to change the name of the company as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner to make such reply is again in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, based on the instruction, submitted that the petitioner has made a request for cancellation of registration by an application dated 04.05.2018 and therefore, the registration was cancelled. Thus, she submitted that the respondent cannot be found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on in the premises. Therefore, it is evident that the time granted therein, expires only on 27.01.2017, however, an order of cancellation was issued on 23.06.2017, which means that the respondent has chosen to pass the order without even waiting for the petitioner to make his reply. 6. Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court finds that the impugned cancellation of registration was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
