IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16498 of 2008 Between: M/s.United Foot Wear & Commercial Industries, 20-1-108 Lane Opp: to Darga Moosa Quadri, Hyderabad-500064, Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Mohd.Yaseen ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commercial TAx officer, Lad bazar Circle Charminar Division,Hyderabad 2 The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Charminar Division Hyderabad 3 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad 4 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring: a.the action of the 1st respondent in canceling the Registration Certiﬁcate of the petitioner vide Notice dated 10.6.2008 without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 19.4.2008 submitted on 21.4.2008 pursuant to the Notice dated 18.4.2008 as arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the AP VAT Act and Rules, and also in violation of principles of natural justice and Rule of law; b. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 14 of AP VAT Rules is ultra vires of Section 17(6) of the AP VAT Act and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 19.6.2008 as null and void and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHAIK JEELANI BASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the notice dated 19.6.2008 issued by the ﬁrst respondent cancelling the Registration Certiﬁcate granted to the petitioner Industry without considering the objections dated 19.4.2008 as illegal and arbitrary and to hold that Sub-Rule 2 of the Rule 14 of the A.P. VAT Act is ultra vires of Sec. 17(6) of the said Act and to consequently, set aside the proceedings of the ﬁrst respondent dated 19.6.2008, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner is a proprietary concern engaged in the business of manufacture of footwear, leather articles, etc. exclusively supplying the same to the Police Department. It is a registered dealer on the rolls of the ﬁrst respondent herein under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioner is issued with a certiﬁcate by the Department of Industries, to the eﬀect that it is a Small Scale Industry. While so, the ﬁrst respondent issued notice in Form VAT 125 dated 18.4.2008 proposing to cancel the Registration with eﬀect from 1.4.2008 inasmuch as the petitioner has not declared the taxable sales over a period of three consecutive months from 1.10.2007. The petitioner submitted objections to the said notice on 21.4.2008. The petitioner also ﬁled application to the third respondent requesting not to cancel the Registration Certiﬁcate. But the ﬁrst respondent, without considering the objections, has cancelled the VAT Registration vide notice dated 19.6.2008. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said Order cancelling the Registration Certiﬁcate was not served on him, but when he requested the ﬁrst respondent for issuance of Tax Clearance Certiﬁcate upto 31.5.2008 for submission of returns, then the ﬁrst respondent served the order on the petitioner on 16.7.2008 and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside for non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The learned Special Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes submits that the petitioner fell in arrears of tax to the tune of Rs.69,294/-, apart from non-disclosure of taxable sales for three consecutive months ending 29.02.2008 and, therefore, the Registration Certiﬁcate was rightly cancelled by the respondents. It is speciﬁc case of the petitioner that the Order Cancelling Registration Certiﬁcate granted to the petitioner Industry was not served on them. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be remanded to the ﬁrst respondent for passing orders afresh after considering the objections submitted by the petitioner, subject to the condition of the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the ﬁrst respondent for passing orders afresh after considering the objections ﬁled by the petitioner, on condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- within a period of two weeks from today. On such deposit, the ﬁrst respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks therefrom. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan July 30, 2008 Copy by 1.8.2008 //BO// MAS ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}