Madras High CourtWP(MD)/8796/2016disposed of

Tvl. Sherin Leathers v. The Commissioner Of

2016-04-29Honourable Mr Justice B. Rajendran2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.04.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition(MD)No.8796 of 2016 and W.M.P(MD)No.6994 of 2016 Tvl. Sherin Leathers, rep. By its Proprietrix H.Ramjan Begam, aged about 36 years, W/o Hyder Ali, No.2B/2, Madurai Road, Begampur, Dindigul - 624 002.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), III Commercial Tax Building, Sub-Collector's Office Road, Dindigul - 624 001.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner in respect of his cancellation proceedings by issuing notice afresh with clarity and until the completion of such proceedings to re-activate petitioner's VAT Registration in TIN 33036301874 in the website. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Veeramanikandan for Mr.B.Rooban For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan A.G.P

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation of registration.

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

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the notice has been given on 07.04.2016, whereas, on 06.04.2016 it is cancelled in the website, therefore, it is wrong. In fact she has also given a reply to the notice dated 07.04.2016. Of course, learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, subsequent development that she has received a message on 26.04.2016 directing her to file a return and thereafter, when she opened the website, she was able to file the return online on 28.04.2016, therefore, as on date, even though the website is opened, now her present grievance is only the cancellation remained in the website.

3. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader would only contend that once the petitioner is permitted to file the return, then appropriate action will be taken as per the reply given for the show cause notice dated 07.04.2016. Further, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader would contend that the respondent will take appropriate action and his main contention is the petitioner is bill-trader.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Subsequent development makes a lot of difference in this case. No doubt, the authority cannot unilaterally cancel the license without notice and enquiry. In this case, admittedly, a show notice has been given on 07.04.2016. Now, the respondent will pursue the show cause notice after giving opportunity to the petitioner, since she has already given a reply, will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the order passed, cancellation in the website should be removed. 6.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o the Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), III Commercial Tax Building, Sub-Collector's Office Road, Dindigul - 624 001.

+One cc to Mr.B.Rooban, Advocate, SR.No.25370 skn RL/4C/2P/DB/SARII/16/6/2016 W.P(MD)No.8796 of 2016 29/04/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/