HARCHARAN PARKASH Vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the appropriate authorities cancelling the registration certificates of the petitioner. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm Messrs Modern General Store, Mandi Road, Jullundur City, and is principally engaged in the business of vegetable ghee and oils. The petitioner is a registered dealer having been registered under the provisions of Section 7 of the General Sales Tax Act. So far as the certificate under the Punjab Act is concerned, it is dated the 10th February, 1960, and is numbered Jul. III-9897 and the certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act is numbered JUL-CST 2188 dated the 12th February, 1960. The petitioner filed a return for the year ending 31st March, 1960, and was assessed to sales tax by an order dated the 21st September, 1960. The petitioner, however, filed quarterly returns in accordance with Section 10 of the Act and deposited tax in accordance with that Section. On the 27th September, 1962, the Assessing Authority issued two notices to the petitioner which are appended to the petition as annexures B-1 and B-2 to show cause why certificates granted under the Punjab and the Central Acts be not cancelled. The reasons mentioned for cancelling the certificates in the notices are identical, namely, that the petitioner is not a bona fide dealer and is abusing the registration certificates for evasion of tax to the detriment of the State Revenue. In response to these notices, the petitioner wrote to the Assessing Authority on the 29th September, 1962, requesting the Assessing Authority to furnish details of the material available in his possession justifying the proposed cancellation. This letter was received by the Assessing Authority on the 1st October, 1962, and without replying to the petitioner's letter, the Assessing Authority cancelled the certificates on that very date. In the return, the position taken up by the Assessing Authority is that the letter was brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority three days later, i. e. , on the 3rd October, 1962. It is against this order of cancellation that the present writ petition is directed.

(2.) SO far as the registration certificate under the Punjab Act is concerned, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows : (1) that it is the Excise and Taxation Commissioner alone who can cancel the certificate ; (2) that even the Excise and Taxation Commissioner has no power to cancel the certificate on the grounds on which it has been cancelled inasmuch as the grounds on which the registration certificate can be cancelled are those enumerated in Section 16 of the Act; and (3) that no adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to show cause against the cancellation of the certificate.

(3.) AS regards the Central Act, the only contention raised is that no adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed cancellation.