BHAVANI AGENCIES Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions filed challenging the orders of the Respondent, dated November 9, 2009 and November 10, 2009, respectively, by which the Respondent cancelled the registration of the Petitioners as dealer in respect of Petitioner in W. P. No. 625 of 2010 for resale of petrol and diesel in RC. No. 101385/87-88 for the business under the repealed Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 and TIN No. 34310000147 under Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and CST No. 34310000147, dated February 28, 1977 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and in respect of the Petitioner in W. P. No. 626 of 2010 as dealer for resale of petrol and diesel and granted Distinct RC No. 105047/1999-2000 for the said business under the repealed Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 and TIN No. 34900001132 under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 and CST No. 34900001132, dated September 22, 1999 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

(2.) The writ Petitioners are the dealers in respect of petroleum products as granted by the Indian Oil Corporation. They purchased the lubricants and sold to the customers and they are regularly assessed to tax and have been paying the same. The Respondent has issued a notice on October 27, 2009 stating that the Petitioner in W. P. No. 625 of 2010 is in arrears of tax for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and in respect of the Petitioner in W. P. No. 626 of 2010 regarding the arrears for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2008-09 and proposed to cancel the registration certificate under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007. It is stated that the Petitioner in W. P. No. 625 of 2010 has called for certain clarification. However, it was insisted that the proceedings would be dropped if the Petitioner gives a letter of undertaking. It is believing the said words, a communication was sent on November 5, 2009 also objecting the authority of the Respondent. However, the objections were not considered and a mechanical order came to be passed on November 9, 2009 which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) In respect of Petitioner in W. P. No. 626 of 2010, the Petitioner on receipt of the said notice dated October 27, 2009 has sent a representation on November 4, 2009 seeking for certain particulars based on which the Respondent proposed to cancel the registration. In a reply sent by the Respondent, dated November 5, 2009, the Respondent refused to furnish copies of the documents and without granting sufficient time passed the impugned order on November 10, 2009.