Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents (sales tax authorities) in cancelling the registration certificate granted to the petitioner and also claim consequential reliefs. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention infra. ( 2. ) THE petitioner is a dealer carrying on business of manufacture and sale of wooden articles under the State Sales Tax as also Central Sales Tax Acts. It appears that sales tax authorities conducted raid in petitioners factory. In this raid proceedings, the authorities were able to collect several documents/materials which was either not accounted for or was not tax paid. This gave rise to issuance of two show cause notices dated October 1, 1992 (annexure P8) by Sales Tax Officer. By this notice, it was said that as to why the registration certificate granted under the State Sales Tax as also Central Sales Tax Acts to petitioner be not cancelled. The petitioner was asked to file reply on or before October 8, 1992. The petitioner on October 8, 1992 filed reply to show cause (annexure P9 ). ( 3. ) IT appears that by annexure P10 dated October 9, 1992 the Sales Tax Officer informed to Chief Conservator of Forest that petitioners registration certificate has been cancelled by their order dated October 8, 1992. The Forest Department was asked to take note of this fact and proceed accordingly. It is this action of the respondents (sales tax authorities) which is impugned in this petition. ( 4. ) THE State by filing return has tried to support the impugned action. ( 5. ) HEARD Shri P. M. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. ( 6. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am inclined to allow the petition. In my opinion, it is a clear case where the Sales Tax Department (sales tax authorities) did not follow principle of natural justice. ( 6. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am inclined to allow the petition. In my opinion, it is a clear case where the Sales Tax Department (sales tax authorities) did not follow principle of natural justice. When the petitioner was asked to file a reply to show cause on or before October 8, 1992 and the same having been done by the petitioner by filing it on October 8, 1992, the concerned authority ought to have fixed the case for hearing the case on any other date. Instead, it clearly appears that it cancelled the certificate itself and that too on October 8, 1992. What was more surprising was that there was no order passed on October 8, 1992 nor it was sent/communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of such proceeding when on October 9, 1992, i. e. , next day, the sales tax authorities sent a letter to forest authorities informing them of cancellation of petitioners certificate by their order dated October 8, 1992. Even in this Court, the respondents have not filed a copy of the so called order dated October 8, 1992. It is, therefore, clear that in fact no order was passed much less on October 8, 1992 on the issue of cancellation of petitioners registration certificate and for which show cause notices were served on the petitioner. ( 7. ) GRANT of certificate and its cancellation is governed by Section 15 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (since repealed ). Section 15 (10) (e) ibid in clear terms makes it obligatory on the part of authority to pass an order containing reasons for cancellation. ( 8. ) I find that the authorities have not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 15 (10) ibid and has proceeded in the matter by informing to other State departments of the cancellation. This action of the sales tax authorities is clearly without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned communication dated October 9, 1992 [annexures P10 (1), P10 (2) and P11] are quashed. This action of the sales tax authorities is clearly without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned communication dated October 9, 1992 [annexures P10 (1), P10 (2) and P11] are quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to hold a proper inquiry and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, and after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner on October 8, 1992 (annexure P9), pass a reasoned order on the issue of cancellation of registration certificate for which two show cause notices dated October 1, 1992 (annexure P8) are issued to the petitioner. Let these be done within four months from the date of this order. No costs. Security amount, if deposited by the petitioner, be refunded.