JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) PETITIONER No. 1, M/s. Ramchand Tarachand, is a registered partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners. The firm is a registered dealer within the meaning of Section 2 (m) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). It made an application for grant of licence in regard to the period of assessment 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 as well as for the period 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983. These applications were dismissed by the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that the gross turnover of the petitioners during these two years was more than Rs. 1,50,000 and consequently no licence could be granted in view of the provision contained in this behalf in Section 13 of the Act, read with Rule 4 of the Rules framed thereunder. ( 2. ) THE Sales Tax Officer determined the amount of turnover for the period between 1st April, 1981 and 31st March, 1982 at Rs. 9 lacs, whereas the amount for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 31st March, 1983 was determined at Rs. 9,20,000. ( 3. ) ON revision, the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Raipur, respondent No. 1, took the view that the exact amount of turnover in regard to both the years had to be redecided by the Sales Tax Officer. He, however, recorded a finding that in any view of the matter, the turnover of the petitioners in regard to both these years was more than Rs. 1,50,000. On this finding, the order of the Sales Tax Officer refusing grant of licence to the petitioners for the two years aforesaid, was upheld, but the Sales Tax Officer was directed to determine the amount of gross turnover afresh and pass consequential orders. It is these orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 which are sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. ( 4. ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the facts stated in para 8 of the writ petition that the impugned orders have been passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity as contemplated by Rule 4 (6) of the Rules and were liable to be quashed. ( 4. ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the facts stated in para 8 of the writ petition that the impugned orders have been passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity as contemplated by Rule 4 (6) of the Rules and were liable to be quashed. In this connection, our attention has also been drawn to an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 22nd November, 1982 in M. P. No. 612 of 1982 [ramchand Tarachand v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (printed as appendix at page 339 infra) filed by the petitioner themselves against a similar order refusing grant of licence with regard to the period from 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981. In that case also the plea of the petitioners was that the requirement of Rule 4 (6) has not been complied with inasmuch as the petitioners were not given an opportunity as contemplated by the said rule. This submission had found favour with the learned Judges deciding that writ petition, and after quashing the impugned orders, the Sales Tax Officer was directed to decide the petitioners application afresh after affording them an opportunity as contemplated by Rule 4 (6 ). ( 5. ) IN para 8 of the present writ petition, it has been categorically stated that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners as contemplated by Rule 4 (6) of the Rules before rejecting the applications for grant of licence for the aforesaid two periods. Reply to this para of the writ petition is contained in para 12 of the return filed on behalf of the respondents. In this para of the return, it has been stated that the contents of para 8 of the writ petition were not admitted, the petitioner was heard before passing order on the application for licence and full opportunity was given by the Sales Tax Officer and that copy of the relevant order was being filed with the return and marked as annexure R-4. ( 6. ) DURING the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice that it is annexure R-3 which is really a copy of the order sheet and not annexure R-4 and that annexure R-4 was a copy of the notice given by the Sales Tax Officer to the petitioners on 23rd October, 1981. ( 7. ( 6. ) DURING the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice that it is annexure R-3 which is really a copy of the order sheet and not annexure R-4 and that annexure R-4 was a copy of the notice given by the Sales Tax Officer to the petitioners on 23rd October, 1981. ( 7. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity as contemplated by Rule 4 (6) of the Rules was afforded to the petitioners before rejecting their application for grant of licence with regard to the two periods mentioned above. Annexure R-4 is a copy of notice dated 23rd October, 1981. By this notice, the petitioners were required to show cause as to why their licence for the current period should not be cancelled. The relevant period mentioned in para 1 of the notice is 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982. It appears that this notice is not happily worded, because licence for the period 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 had not been granted till 23rd October, 1981 when this application was given and the application for grant of licence was still under consideration. As such, there was no occasion for cancellation of any subsisting licence. Apparently what the notice meant was that the petitioners were required to show cause as to why their application for grant of licence may not be dismissed. The order of dismissing the application for grant of licence with regard to the period 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 indicates that reliance in passing of the said order was placed on a report of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. A copy of the said report has been attached as annexure R-l to the return. It indicates that this report was submitted by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer in pursuance of a memo of the Sales Tax Officer dated 10th December, 1981. Annexure R-3 which is the copy of order sheet, indicates that by order dated 9th December, 1981, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer was required to submit a fresh report and obviously the memo dated 10th December, 1981 was issued in pursuance of this order dated 9th December, 1981. Annexure R-3 contains 2 more orders : one dated 25th January, 1982 and the other dated 27th January, 1982. Annexure R-3 contains 2 more orders : one dated 25th January, 1982 and the other dated 27th January, 1982. From their perusal, however, it does not appear that the petitioners ever were appraised of the report submitted by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, a copy whereof has been attached as annexure R-l to the return. It is thus apparent that no opportunity, as contemplated by Rule 4 (6) of the Rules, was given to the petitioners with regard to the period between 1st April, 1981 and 31st March, 1982. ( 8. ) AS regards the subsequent periods, namely, the period between 1st April, 1982 and 31st March, 198. 3, no copy either of any order sheet, or of any notice has been attached along with the return indicating that the petitioners were given any opportunity as contemplated by Rule 4 (6 ). In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the petitioners were not given an opportunity as contemplated by Rule 4 (6) of the Rules before dismissing their applications for grant of licence with regard to the aforesaid two periods. ( 9. ) AS already pointed out above, on similar facts, for an earlier period, Writ Petition No. 612 of 1982 (printed as appendix at page 339 infra) filed by the petitioners was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 22nd November, 1982. For the same reasons, this writ petition also succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 2nd February, 1982 and 24th August, 1982 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, respondent No. 2, and the composite order dated 1st March, 1983 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, respondent No. 1, are quashed and the Sales Tax Officer, Raipur Circle IV, Raipur, respondent No. 2, is directed to decide the applications made by the petitioners for grant of licence for the two periods mentioned above afresh after affording them an opportunity as contemplated by Rule 4 (6) of the Rules. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioners.