S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) - Appeal No. F. H. A. T. No. 3716 of 1986 is directed against an order passed by a. learned Single Judge on 17. 9. 86 in C. O. No, 9997 (W) of 1986, dismissing a writ petition preferred by the appellants inter alia, on the ground that the writ petitioners have an alternative forum in the form of revision provided for under Bengal Finance Salem Tax Act. The instant application in connection with the said appeal for stay of operation of the judgment under appeal as also for some ad interim reliefs. The writ petitioners are the appellants/petitioners before us. ( 2 ) THE present appeal is one of the rare instances, as will be indicated by the facts and circumstances hereinafter, where a routine order even at the interlocutory stage, may not sub-serve the end of justice. The probable impact of even an interlocutory order on the survival of a business concern like that of the petitioners, on the one hand, and irreparable loss of revenue on the part of the statutory authorities on the other, has compelled us to bestow our very serious and anxious consideration at the dictates of our judicial conscience so that within the permissible limits of law, the interests of both the contesting parties may be duly safeguarded and ends of justice may be served. ( 3 ) THE relevant facts as narrated in the writ application, shortly put; are as follows: -the petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as concerned petitioner) carried on a business under the name and style of M/s. Love-Bird (India) at 9, Beck Bagan Row; Calcutta-17 as Commission Agent and Tea Merchant the concerned petitioner's firm was member of Calcutta Tea Traders Association and such entitled to bid at auction of Tea Sale held in Nilhut House at No. 11, R. N. Mukherjee Road, Calcutta-1; other tea traders, who are not members of the said Association, purchased tea sold in auction as aforesaid in the name of the concerned petitioner against commissions; under the existing system the members, who bid at the auction, are permitted to make payments by the last day, which is the 15th day from the date of the auction and which is known as the prompt day, failing which the membership is liable to be cancelled; on one such prompt day on 5. 2. 2. 1986 the concerned petitioner was tallying the documents at the office of petitioner No. 1 at P. 36, India Exchange Place, when a search had been conducted purportedly on behalf of the Sales Tax Authorities and in course of such search a number of documents including one file in custody of petitioner No. 1 had been seized against a seizure receipt indicating seizure of two items containing five pieces of documents on suspicion that M/s. Love-Bird (India) of 9, Beck Bagan Row had been attempting to evade payment of tax, the seized documents included four declaration forms; since the seizure was conducted by officers of Central Section, of Commercial Taxes, the concerned petitioner contacted the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, for return of the seized documents, the concerned petitioner also contacted the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, to whom an application for declaration forms had been submitted, series of attempts to get back those documents proved abortive though the concerned petitioner apprised the authorities that without the necessary declaration forms it would not be possible for him to get the purchased tea released, by a notice dated 14. 2. 86, under Section 14 (1) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax, 1941, the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, asked the concerned petitioner to appear before him on 24. 2. 86 at 11-30 A. M. , no hearing took place on 24. 2. 86'due to non-availability of the concerned officer, By a subsequent notice, dated 22. 4. 86, the concerned petitioner was directed to appear again on 12th May, 1986 at 11-30 A. M. , as the petitioner was facing difficulty in the absence of declaration forms, the petitioner contacted the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge on 8. 3. 86 for issuance of the declaration forms on the basis of the application made on 6. 2. 86 when it was intimated to the concerned petitioner that the registration certificate of the petitioners' firm had been cancelled by the said officer on 24. 2. 3. 86 for issuance of the declaration forms on the basis of the application made on 6. 2. 86 when it was intimated to the concerned petitioner that the registration certificate of the petitioners' firm had been cancelled by the said officer on 24. 2. 86; that no notice prior to such cancellation had been served on the concerned petitioner and in view of such cancellation, no declaration form was issued to him it appears from the order canceling the registration that such cancellation had been made on the belief that the dealer had not been carrying on business from the declared place of business as gathered from personal visit by the officer concerned on 24. 2. 86 and another visit by an Inspector of Commercial Taxes on 20. 2. 86, there was also a reference to visit by team of Inspectors of the Central Section without any particulars relating to such visit, the concerned petitioner filed two Revisional application on 21. 8. 86 under both the State Act and the Central Act challenging the propriety of the order of cancellation; the said two applications were taken up for hearing on 4. 4. 86 by one P. G. Goswami Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, South Circle, respondent No. 4 who called for a report from the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, apparently to discern the real reason for cancellation of the registration certificates an4 simultaneously asked the Concerned petitioner to submit a statement of purchases and sales made during the month of March, 1986, that is, subsequent to the cancellation of the registration certificates; the concerned petitioner handed over the required statement, which was the only statement called for from the side of the statutory authorities in connection with the Revisional applications; it appears from a memo, forwarded to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, South Circle, under his letter dated 3. 7. 86, that the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, who had cancelled the registration had intimated him on 20. 6. 7. 86, that the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, who had cancelled the registration had intimated him on 20. 6. 86 that the purchases and sales, obviously, during the month of March 1986 after cancellation of the registration, could not be verified by the Central Section due to submission of incomplete statement by the dealer; as the conduct of the respondents appeared to the concerned petitioner to be designed and motivated and as he apprehended that the whole object of the respondents was to defer the hearing of the Revisional applications, the petitioners moved the writ application in question, inter alia, for quashing of the orders of cancellation,. refusal of declaration forms and for return of the seized documents with a declaration that the seizure made on 5. 2. 86 was void, invalid, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents, an affidavit-in-opposition had been filed affirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, inter alia, taking a stand that upon receipt of an allegation that the concerned petitioner was evading huge amount of sales tax by showing fictitious sales to different parties in Nepal, a search and seizure was conducted by the Central Section of the Office of the Collector of Commercial Taxes repeated requisitions by the authorities on the concerned petitioner to call on the Central Section for co-operating in the verification of sales proved abortives; that as the petitioner No. 2 was not found at the alleged place of business on more than one inspections, the registration certificate of the concerned petitioner had been cancelled. In support of such factual allegation, Xerox copies of inspection reports dated 24. 2. 86 and 20. 2. 86 had been relied upon. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya, has strongly argued that the registration of concerned petitioner had been cancelled by invocation of powers under Section 7 (6) (a) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1841. The said cancellation can be made in terms o the Statute when 'any business. . . . . . has been discontinued. ' According to Mr. Bhattacharya, admittedly, in the instant case, the existence of the basic criteria for such cancellation, namely, discontinuance of the business is founded upon visits by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, who is respondent No. 1 to the writ application, on 24. 2. . . . . . has been discontinued. ' According to Mr. Bhattacharya, admittedly, in the instant case, the existence of the basic criteria for such cancellation, namely, discontinuance of the business is founded upon visits by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge, who is respondent No. 1 to the writ application, on 24. 2. 86 and another visit by an Inspector of Commercial Taxes on. 20. 2. 86 at 1-15 P. M. Referring to the reports submitted by the said two officers, which are annexures H and X respectively, Mr. Bhattacharyya has submitted that on 24. 2. 86, his client admittedly had to attend the once of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, West Bengal, in pursuance of the notice dated 14. 2. 86, which is annexure 'e' to the writ application. Therefore failure on the part of the concerned petitioner to keep the place of business open cannot be basis of a conclusion that the business bad been discontinued, particularly, when the time of visiting the business place is conspicuously withheld in the said annexure by the officer concerned further, Mr. Bhattacharya pointed out that the very nature of the business of petitioner No. 2, through his sole proprietorship firm, indicates that there is no necessity for a show-room or even a business office with various hands. The only requirement is the maintenance of communication or link. Before cancellation, no hearing also was given to the petitioner No. 2the doubtful nature of such visits constituting the basis of cancellation was sought to be covered up by a plea that no independent witness was available to corroborate such visit. About the second visit on 20. 2. 86, Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that, even assuming that on that date the business premises was found closed, the same could not lead to a conclusion of the discontinuance of the business and form the basis of action particularly, when the authorities are to impose a very serious penalty of cancellation of registration touching the very livelihood of the dealer. Secondly, Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that the refusal of the declaration forms by the respondents being based on such doubtful cancellation of registration (annexure 'h') to the writ application dated 6. 3. 86) is a matter regarding which the petitioners become entitled to interim relief. In this connection, Mr. Secondly, Mr. Bhattacharya has contended that the refusal of the declaration forms by the respondents being based on such doubtful cancellation of registration (annexure 'h') to the writ application dated 6. 3. 86) is a matter regarding which the petitioners become entitled to interim relief. In this connection, Mr. Bhattacharyya has contended that the other grounds available for refusal of declaration forms under the Statutory provisions have not been found applicable in the case of the petitioners and as such the refusal of declaration forms on the ground of cancellation of registration being the only ground, the authorities should be directed, during the pendency of the appeal, to issue such declaration forms as otherwise the petitioners would be forced to suffer consequences of failure to get the goods already sold released and discontinue their business. Lastly, Mr. Bhattacharyya argued that the learned trial Judge dismissed the application for writ on the ground of availability of an alternative forum in the form of Revisional applications, which are remaining pending before the statutory authorities. Mr. Bhattacharyya has submitted that the learned trial Judge did not at all advert to the allegation of mala fides on the part of the revisional authorities made on behalf of the petitioners. Admittedly, the revisional authorities have not disputed the allegations made in paragraphs 27 to 32 the writ application though an affidavit purported to be one on behalf of all the respondents had been used before the learned Trial Judge. Specific factual allegations having been made and not controverted the same should be deemed to have been admitted. The only statement so long asked to be filed from the side of the petitioner was a statement relating to sales in the month of March, 1986, that is, subsequent to the cancellation of the registration and the hearing of the revisional applications has been kept postponed on the pretext of getting the correctness of such statement verified and calling for explanations from the firm of the concerned petitioner with regard to the report of the Commercial Tax Officer, Ballygunge Charge dated 20. 6. 86 attributing incompleteness to such statement. The extent and nature of incompleteness have nowhere been indicated so as to enable the petitioners to meet such allegation, But in the process, a period of about 4 months have been wasted, though the concerned petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood. 6. 86 attributing incompleteness to such statement. The extent and nature of incompleteness have nowhere been indicated so as to enable the petitioners to meet such allegation, But in the process, a period of about 4 months have been wasted, though the concerned petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood. The conduct of the respondents and absolute non-application of mind on the part of the revisional authority has created apprehension of mala fides in the minds of the petitioners as made out in paragraph 32 of the writ application. Mr. Bhattacharya, in the background of the aforesaid submissions, has contended that there is a strong prima facie case in favour of the petitioners needing an investigation by this Court as the allegation of mala fides clearly establishes the abortiveness of the statutory relief in the form of revisional applications. The balance of convenience also requires, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, the grant of an interim relief. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it has been canvassers that, prima facie, the cancellation of registration is in conformity with the legal requirements and the respondents are authorised to refuse the declaration forms to a dealer whose registration has already been cancelled. The issuance of the declaration forms on the strength of an interim order should not be granted as that might result in loss of revenue. ( 7 ) BY way of interlocutory relief, the petitioners have prayed, in the first place, for stay of operation of the order of the learned single Judge, which would have the effect of restraining the respondents including the revisional authorities from proceeding with the disposal of the revisional applications expeditiously; Secondly, the petitioners have prayed for injunction restraining the respondents from giving effect to or taking any steps whatsoever in pursuance of the purported order of cancellation of registration and thirdly, they have prayed for direction upon respondent No. 1 to issue declaration form's No. XXIV and 33a. under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and Central Sales Tax Act 1956 for the period the transactions had already been made, which on the basis of the statements in the application for writ and the materials on record appears to be relating to the period of December 1085 and January, 1986 (Annexure C) and also to facilitate the curiage of business in future. ( 8 ) SINCE we are not disposing of the appeal but only the interlocutory application, we forbear from expressing any opinion on the respective contentions of the parties on merit except to the extent necessary for the purpose of disposal of this interlocutory application to avoid the decision in the appeal being affected or influenced in any way. ( 9 ) FOR considering the question of grant of any interim relief or refusal thereof, we have to arrive at findings on well-known and judicially recognised questions, relevant, on such matters namely, existence of a prima facie case or of arguable issue and balance of convenience. The admitted position is that the cancellation of the certificate of registration had led to the rejection of the petitioners' prayer for obtaining declaration forms with the consequence of completely stopping the petitioner's business. The power for cancellation of registration is to be found in Section 7 of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, which by Subsection 6 Clause A thereof provides for cancellation on the ground of discontinuance-of business. Since the circumstances under which the power of cancellation of registration had been exercised by the authorities in the instant case cannot be unhesitatingly said to be beyond controversy or proper for such exercise, the legality of exercise of such power is open to question and since admittedly no opportunity had been granted to the concerned petitioner of being heard before such cancellation, and such cancellation is the only ground on which declaration forms have been refused and as further the said ground is not apparently one within the purview of the relevant statutory rules for refusal of declaration forms, we are of the view that arguable issues have been raised confirming existance of a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, Regarding the question of balance of convenience, it appears that origin of the entire statutory proceeding against the petitioner is based on a suspicion about their attempted evasion of tax arising out of the fact that sales amounting to Rs. 702057. 74 out of total sales of Rs. 714380. 20 had been claimed to be entitled to exemption being sales out of India. 702057. 74 out of total sales of Rs. 714380. 20 had been claimed to be entitled to exemption being sales out of India. In that context and taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, we feel the interest of the revenue would amply be protected if for getting the declaration forms the petitioners are directed to keep in deposit with the revenue authorities amounts, which would be sufficient in case such sales are found taxable or to furnish Bank guarantees as detailed here in below. The Revisional cases pending before the statutory authorities should remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal in view of apparently uncontradicted allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 4 but that will not prevent the respondents from proceeding with the said cases through any Officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner other than Respondent No. 4 Shri P. G. Goswami, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta (S) Circle by invocation of the power under Rules 74a of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. ( 10 ) THIS liberty is given not upon formation of any final opinion by not regarding the allegation of mala fides made by the petitioner but following the well known legal maxim that 'justice should not only be done but should be seen to have been done. ' ( 11 ) IN the result we dispose of the application as follows: (A)the respondents are directed to issue declaration forms regarding the sales effected between December 1985 and January 1986 as prayed for the petitioner on condition that (Sub-para) (i) condition that the petitioners deposit in cash or furnishes Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondent No. 7, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for, amounts equivalent to the value of declarations claimed and (ii)the petitioners also keep in deposit with the respondents or furnishes adequate Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the said respondent No. 7 for amounts equivalent to the amount of tax that might become payable in the event the disputed sales in Nepal, which are claimed to be exempted in the writ application concerned, are found taxable. We have permitted Bank guarantees upon due consideration of the relevant circumstances arid the interests of the petitioners and Revenue authorities. We have permitted Bank guarantees upon due consideration of the relevant circumstances arid the interests of the petitioners and Revenue authorities. (b)further proceedings in the revisional cases pending before the respondents as mentioned in the application would remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal but the respondents would be at liberty to proceed with the said cases in the manner indicated herein before. (c)the operation of the impugned order of the learned Trial Judge would remain stayed to the extent indicated above. (d)hearing of the appeal is expedited. Settling of index being dispensed with the paper Books are directed to be filed within 8 weeks from today. Se: vice of notice of appeal on appearing respondents is waived by Mr. Bose. Liberty is given to mention the appeal for early hearing. ( 12 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, it is desirable that the new application for' registration filed by the petitioners on 9. 7. 86 be disposed of with reasonable expedition. ( 13 ) ANY step taken in pursuance of this order will be subject to the results of the appeal and further order to be passed therein. ( 14 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. D. K. Basu, J. I agree.