R. Damodan vs Union of India and others

Srinivasan, J.—The writ petition is taken up by consent. Heard both sides.

The petitioner got registration under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. His CST registration was

cancelled with effect from 1st February, 1992 by an order dated 18th February, 1992. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order

but it was rejected as it was out of time, viz., delay of more than 30 days, and the appellate authority, had no power to condone the same. Hence

the petitioner has now challenged the original order of cancellation of registration.

It is contended by the petitioner that he was not given proper opportunity to show cause against the proposed cancellation. It is seen from the

order of cancellation that a notice was issued prior to the order of cancellation by way of affixture on the door of the premises in which the

petitioner was doing business as it was found locked. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents were aware of the petitioner''s

residential address and they ought to have sent the notice to the residential address if he was not found in the business premises and only thereafter

resorted to have had the affixture of notice. The petitioner points out that the order of cancellation was sent to the petitioner''s address by

registered post with acknowledgment due. Thus he submits that the respondents were aware of the petitioner''s residential address.

Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, provides for service of notice. The same rule applies to the service of notice under

Central Sales Tax Act also. Clause (a) of rule 52(1) provides thus.

52(1). Service of notices. - The service on a dealer of any notice, summons or order under the Act or these rules may be effected in any of the

following ways, namely :-

(a) by giving or tendering it to such dealer or his manager or agent or the legal practitioner appointed to represent him or to his authorised

representative; or

Explanation. - Endorsement by person who delivers the notice, etc., of having tendered or given it will be proof for the purpose of this sub-rule.

.........................

It is seen from clause (b) that the rule contemplates issue of notice to the residential address. Clause (c) is to the effect that if the address of the

dealer is known to the assessing authority the notice should be sent to him by registered post. Obviously clause (c) must refer only to residential

address. There is no question of using the word ""if"" in the case of business address. Such address is found in the application as well as in the

registration certificate, and hence when the clause talks of address, to say that ""if the address of such dealer is known to the assessing authority"", it

means residential address and not the business address. Therefore, rules contemplate issue of notice to the residential address before resorting to

the affixture of notice at a conspicuous place in the last known place of business or residence. Hence by reading of all the clauses together, it is

clear that a notice ought to have been sent to the residential address when it was found that the dealer could not be served at his business address.

It was only thereafter the authority should have resorted to affixture.

Section 7(4)(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides for cancellation of the registration granted under the Act if the authority is satisfied after

due notice to the dealer to whom it has been granted that he ceased to carry on the business. This section clearly mentions ""due notice"". It can be

said ""due notice"" is given to the dealer only if rule 52 has been properly complied with. In the present case, rule 52 has not been complied with as a

matter of fact. Hence, the dealer, viz., the petitioner herein, did not have ""due notice"" before cancellation of his registration. Consequently, the

order of cancellation is vitiated and is liable to be quashed.

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18th February, 1992 cancelling the registration of the petitioner is quashed. It is open

to the respondent to issue a fresh notice if so desired, to the petitioner to show cause why his registration should not he cancelled for such reasons

as may be set out in such notice and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation, the respondents shall pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs.

Writ petition allowed.