ORDER DEEPAK VERMA - By filing this petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India petitioner is prying for quashment of the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ratlam dated June 3, 1997 and the revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Ratlam on August 26, 1997, respectively marked as annexure P-10 and annexure P-11, herein. 2. Factual matrix is as under : Petitioner is the proprietorship concern. Petitioner applied for grant of registration certificate to him under section 22 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). As required under section 22, sub-section (4), the petitioner was granted a registration certificate, pursuant to holding of an enquiry, as contemplated under this provision. After the issuance of the registration certificate in its favour by the Commercial Tax Officer, an Inspector had recorded the statement of the petitioner on February 25, 1997. The said statement recorded by the Inspector has been filed and is marked as annexure P-5. 3. It appears, that on the statement so recorded, the Commercial Tax Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on May 27, 1997 on the following two grounds : (i) That the business is actually being carried on by Antil Mantri and Kantilal Mantri, who happens to be maternal uncle and grandfather of petitioner's proprietor Vinod Kumar Somani, whose registration was cancelled for non-payment of sales tax dues. (ii) That necessary returns of sales and purchase, as required under section 26 of the Act have not been furnished within time. On such show cause notice being issued, petitioner submitted his reply refuting the allegations made in the said show cause notice. Petitioner specifically submitted that it is no doubt true that he happens to be a close relative of Anil Kumar Mantri and Kantilal Mantri, but as far as this petitioner's business is concerned, they have absolutely nothing to do with it. Petitioner is carrying on the said business on his own without there being any aid from them. He further submitted that petitioner has filed the returns as required under the law. In a nutshell his case was that for the reasons disclosed in the show cause notice, no case was made out for cancellation of petitioner's registration which was granted after due enquiry and verification of the facts. 4. Petitioner was then directed to appear respondent No. 1. In a nutshell his case was that for the reasons disclosed in the show cause notice, no case was made out for cancellation of petitioner's registration which was granted after due enquiry and verification of the facts. 4. Petitioner was then directed to appear respondent No. 1. Petitioner along with his counsel appeared before the authority. It appears that after going through the papers available with the said authority it found that petitioner has some connection with regard to the business which was earlier carried on by Anil Mantri and Kantilal Mantri, under the name and style of M/s. M.S. Traders. The petitioner had also not filed the requisite returns within the time prescribed under the law. Thus, under section 22 of the Act it cancelled the registration certificate granted to the petitioner. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this order, petitioner preferred a revision under section 62 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax and prayed for quashment of the said order. However, the revisional authority also did not agree to the contention as advanced by the petitioner and upheld the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. Consequently and in the result the petitioner's revision was also dismissed. The petitioner has now approached this Court for quashment of the aforesaid two orders. 6. Show cause notice against admission was issued to the respondents. Respondents have submitted their reply in oppugnation. Their main contention is that the proprietor of the petitioner happens to be a close relative of Anil Mantri and Kantilal Mantri, partners of Shreejee Industries who had defaulted in payment of sales tax and finally have wound up their business. Their registration was also cancelled on account of non-payment of the sales tax. Respondents have further submitted that the petitioner in fact is now carrying on business for and on behalf of his uncle and grandfather. It has also been mentioned in the reply that on a confidential enquiry being conducted, it was found that actually the business is being carried on by them and not by the petitioner. Petitioner has been termed as a name-lender. As regards other grounds it has been mentioned that petitioner had also not submitted the returns within time or even when submitted, then wrong registration number has been given in the same. They have, therefore, tried to justify the cancellation of petitioner's registration certificate and the subsequent revisional order passed thereon. 7. Petitioner has been termed as a name-lender. As regards other grounds it has been mentioned that petitioner had also not submitted the returns within time or even when submitted, then wrong registration number has been given in the same. They have, therefore, tried to justify the cancellation of petitioner's registration certificate and the subsequent revisional order passed thereon. 7. In the light of the averments and counter-averments made by respective parties I have heard them at length and perused the record. 8. Shri Ramgilda appearing for the petitioner submitted that no proper and effective enquiry as is contemplated under section 22 of the Act was not at all conducted. The enquiry, according to him, was just an eye-wash and an empty formality. He further submitted that no definite finding has been recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to come to the conclusion that petitioner's uncle and grandfather are actually carrying on the business and not the petitioner, yet a drastic order has been passed for cancellation of petitioner's registration. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that when no direct or indirect nexus between the petitioner and the defaulter of the sales tax has been established, it was not a fit case where the petitioner's registration should have been directed to be cancelled. According to him the petitioner had assigned valid reasons for filing of the show cause notice and dropping the proceedings, but for some extraneous consideration, which was not brought to the notice of the petitioner yet petitioner's registration was cancelled which order has also been upheld in the revision. 10. Petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment reported in (1995) 99 STC 401 (Sudhakar Oil Traders v. Asst. Commercial Tax Officer), wherein the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, a citizen has a fundamental right to carry on any occupation, subject of course to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State under article 19(6), on the exercise of that right in the interest of general public. This legal position cannot be disputed. 11. The question before this Court is, whether a proper enquiry was held by respondent No. 1 in conformity with the provisions of section 22 of the Act. This legal position cannot be disputed. 11. The question before this Court is, whether a proper enquiry was held by respondent No. 1 in conformity with the provisions of section 22 of the Act. After going through the impugned order, I find that the basis on which the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no proper enquiry was conducted before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has some direct or indirect nexus with the defaulters. Mere relationship is not sufficient to come to this conclusion. It can be just a chance that the petitioner happens to be relation of a defaulting party. It can also be a matter of chance that he is carrying on the same business which was being carried on by the defaulting party and from the same premises. But for coming to the conclusion that petitioner being a name-lender, actual business is being carried on by the defaulting party, clinching and substantial evidence was required to be collected by respondent No. 1 while holding an enquiry in this regard. 12. After going through the impugned order it is also clearly made out that even the authority concerned has not come to a definite conclusion. The order appears to have been passed on conjectures and surmises. When a valuable right of the petitioner is being taken away inasmuch as he is deprived from carrying on his business on account of the cancellation of the registration, the authority should have been cautious and careful in arriving at a definite conclusion. Unfortunately even the revisional authority has committed the same mistake. From the perusal of the impugned orders, I find that there has not been any proper application of mind to the facts of the case. If there was any other material on the basis of which the respondents had come to this erroneous conclusion, then at least that evidence should have been brought to the notice of the petitioner so that he could have given satisfactory answer to the same, if he had any to offer, in that regard. But if appears that no such opportunity was also given to the petitioner. 13. But if appears that no such opportunity was also given to the petitioner. 13. The case which has been referred to by the revisional authority and reported in [1981] 47 STC 407 (MP); (1981) 14 VKN 85 (Trackways Private Ltd., Bhopal v. Commercial Tax Officers, Sales Tax, M.P) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case it was not disputed that some of the defaulting parties were directors of the newly constituted company, which had applied for registration for carrying on the same business. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the respondents that the partners of the defaulting partnership-firm are partners with the petitioner or/are actually carrying on business for and on behalf of the petitioner. It may also be mentioned here that before issuance of a permanent registration certificate an enquiry is conducted by the respondents under sub-section (4)(b) of section 22 of the Act. It is not the case of the respondents that the provisions as contemplated under sub-section (4)(b) of section 22 were not followed or adhered to. The grant of permanent registration certificate in favour of the petitioner pre-supposes that an enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid sub-section must have been conducted by the Commissioner and only thereafter the necessary certificate was issued. 14. For the foregoing reasons I hereby quash annexure P-10 dated June 4, 1997 and annexure P-11 dated September 2, 1997 and remit the matter to respondent No. 1 to hold a fresh enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, if required and asked for, by the petitioner, to give an opportunity of hearing. Needless to say that the department shall also be given similar liberty for elaborating the facts. It is expected of respondent No. 1 to hold the fresh enquiry into the matter within a period of three (3) months hereof from the date of communication of this order. It is clarified that quashment of the aforesaid two orders will not mean revival of petitioner's registration. 15. Parties agree that they shall appear before respondent No. 1 on December 29, 1997 for further participation in the enquiry. With this observation the petition stands finally disposed of, but with no order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.