SAY LEATHERS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) appearing on behalf the respondent.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled, without the petitioner being given an opportunity of being heard. THE reason stated by the respondent, in the impugned order, is that the petitioner had filed the returns only upto the month of September, 2009, and on physical verification, it had been found that the petitioner was not carrying on the business in the address furnished by the petitioner, for getting the registration certificate. He had further submitted that, the provisions of Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, for service of notices, summons and orders, had not been followed by the respondent, before cancelling the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled