JUDGMENT H. L. AGRAWAL, C.J., and S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. - In this writ application, the question is as to whether cancellation of registration certificate of a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act can be given retrospective effect. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 29th August, 1985 (annexure 2), passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Kesinga (opposite party 1), cancelling the registration certification of the petitioner bearing No. KA/KES-4 under section 9(6)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act with retrospective effect, i.e., from 1st April, 1985. The order was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, but he by his order dated 31st December, 1985 (annexure 4), dismissed the same. 3. The only point urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that cancellation of the registration certificate from a retrospective date is illegal. The date of passing the order is 29th August, 1985, and the cancellation is purported to have been made from 1st April, 1985. 4. Rule 16(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, empowers the Assistant Sales Tax Officer on the Sales Tax Officer, as the case may be, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, cancel the registration of a dealer with effect from the date to be specified by him, subject to any modification under sub-rule (3) by the Commissioner. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, has to specify the date from which the cancellation will take effect. But, it is well-settled that he cannot fix a date with retrospective effect. That question, apart from other principles to be followed for cancellation of registration certificate, has been set at rest by a Bench decision of this Court in S.J.C. Nos. 101 and 102 of 1975 disposed of on 14th September, 1977, wherein it has been held that the provision in rule 16B(1) authorising the Sales Tax Officer to specify a date in the order would not permit him to a fix date retrospectively and would always mean that a date which may be the date of making of the order or a date at any point in future could only be indicated. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders (annexures 2 and 4) cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders (annexures 2 and 4) cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. It is, however, made clear that the order of cancellation of the petitioner's registration certificate will be deemed to be effective from the date of service of the same on the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is disposed of. Ordered accordingly.