SELVA GANESH TRADERS Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the respondent in proceedings No. TIN 33952282949/2006 -07 dated April 27, 2007 cancelling the registration certificate of the petitioner issued under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

(2.) THE averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer in oil seeds, oil cake, etc. He was running the business from March 15, 2006 and the goods dealt with by the petitioner are exempted from tax. The respondent issued a notice in TIN No. 33952282949/2007 -08, dated April, 19, 2007 stating that the petitioner had purchased gingelly seeds from Regulated Market Committee, Ariyalur, during the year 2006 -07, but he did not file any return or paid any tax. Therefore, the respondent determined the turnover of the petitioner's firm provisionally at Rs. 5 lakhs with a tax liability of Rs. 20,000 and fixed the additional security at Rs. 30,000 as per Section 39(4) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. The petitioner was required to pay the additional security within three days failing which the registration certificate under the TN VAT Act, 2006 and CST Act, 1956 will be cancelled. The petitioner by his letter dated April 26, 2007, replied that he did not purchase anything from the Regulated Market Committee, Ariyalur, and requested 15 days time for filing objections. Without considering the request made by the petitioner and giving proper and reasonable opportunity, the respondent has cancelled the registration certificate of the petitioner issued under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act and CST Act by his proceedings in TIN No. 33952282949/2006 -07 dated April 27, 2007, stating that the objections are overruled. No opportunity of being heard was given as contemplated under Section 39(5) of the TN VAT, Act. Further, the additional security demanded by the respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 39(5) of the TN VAT Act.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Ramanathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. Ganesan for the State and perused the materials on record.