S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 28th August, 2002, Reported as Krishna Kumar Mantri v. ACCT [2004] 138 STC 683 (WBTT), passed by the learned West Bengal Taxation Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" in R. N. Case No. 235 of 2002. ( 2 ) THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows : the respondent, Sri Krishna Kumar Mantri, was served with a notice dated March 11, 2002 directing him to show cause as to why his registration certificate will not be cancelled under Section 26 (10) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the ground that he had ceased to carry on any business from his recorded place of business at Postabazar. It was stated that during visits to the place of business on different dates by the authority concerned and its representatives, it was found that one Mr. Chandgotia was carrying on business of sarees from the said place. In reply to the said notice dated March 11, 2002, the present respondent gave a reply dated March 23, 2002 wherein it was clearly stated that he was still running his business from the same place since the commencement of the business from April, 1993. It was stated that the authority concerned on January 11, 2000 issued hundred way bills in form No. 42 and the same were duly accounted for. In the reply it was further suggested that the authority concerned could very well summon persons who earlier participated in the alleged enquiry for examination. The authority concerned relying upon reports of such visits cancelled the registration certificate. ( 3 ) SECTION 26 (10) of the Sales Tax Act reads as follows : --" (10) When -- (a) any business in respect of which a certificate of registration has been granted to a dealer on an application made, has been discontinued, or (b) a dealer has ceased to be liable to pay tax under Section 9, Section 10, Section 12 and Section 15, the prescribed authority shall cancel the registration of such dealer. " ( 4 ) THE materials on record reveal that being directed by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Postabazar's report, the concerned Assistant Commercial Tax Officer visited the official address of the dealer, M/s. Shri Balaji Commercial Services at 7, Bysack Street, Kolkata-700 007 on February 5, 2002. During such visit it was found that the place of business was in occupation of one, Mr. P. K. Chandgotia, who stated that the room in question was taken as rent-free accommodation from Mr. H. K. Mantri for a period of three months. The enquiry report reveals that he also stated that no other person carries on any business during the period from 10 a. m. to 7 p. m. in the said declared place of business. ( 5 ) THE Commercial Tax Officer also visited the declared place of business of the dealer M/s. Sri Balaji Commercial Services on February 19, 2002. In the report submitted it was stated that the said dealer is not carrying on any business from the aforesaid place being 7, Bysack Street, Kolkata-700 007. This was followed by further visit on February 27, 2002 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and in the connected report, it was stated that one, Mr. Chandgotia, claimed that he took the room from Sri H. K. Mantri on a rental of Rs. 1,000 per month including electricity charges. The arrangement being verbal, no rent receipt used to be issued. ( 6 ) IT appears that on January 11, 2000 hundred way bills were issued to the respondent-company by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Postabazar area on the basis of which the respondent imported goods into West Bengal for sale. On January 18, 2000 search and seizure were made by the Bureau of Investigation at the business place of the respondent. Challenging such seizure the respondent No. 1 filed an application before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal being R. N. Case No. 24 of 2000 (Krishna Kumar Mantri v. ICT, Bureau of Investigation) which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal with a direction upon the authority to return the said seized goods. On February 7, 2000 the registration certificate was cancelled by the authority on the ground of discontinuation of business. This was, of course, challenged by filing an application before the learned Tribunal being R. N. No. 460 of 2001 (Krishna Kumar Mantri v. ICT ). On February 7, 2000 the registration certificate was cancelled by the authority on the ground of discontinuation of business. This was, of course, challenged by filing an application before the learned Tribunal being R. N. No. 460 of 2001 (Krishna Kumar Mantri v. ICT ). Learned Tribunal set aside the order of cancellation of registration. ( 7 ) IN such backdrop the respondent challenging the order dated July 10, 2002 filed an application before the learned Tribunal being R. N. Case No. 235 of 2002. The learned Tribunal by order dated August 28, 2002, Reported as Krishna Kumar Mantri v. ACCT [2004] 138 STC 683 (WBTT ). set aside the order of the authority cancelling the registration certificate. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel, Smt. Seba Roy, appearing for the petitioner invited attention of the court to Section 26 (10) (a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1994 in support of her contention that it is within the competence of the authority to cancel registration when it is found that there is discontinuation of business from the declared place. Smt. Roy submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter in the right perspective. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the authority concerned rather got engaged in a wild goose chase. It was submitted that in one of the enquiry reports it was stated that Mr. Chandgotia got the place of business in a way of rent-free accommodation from Mr. H. K. Mantri whereas in another report it was claimed that such accommodation was given to him on a rental of Rs. 1,000 per month. It was contended that the basis for initiating proceeding against the present respondent was wrong, if not mala fide. ( 10 ) LEARNED Tribunal in the impugned order referred to the submission made that the registration certificate was cancelled merely on the ground that the room in question was being used for carrying on saree business. ( 11 ) IT cannot be denied that there are gross inconsistencies in the materials before the authority concerned. The latent wounds could not be healed up. The inherent defects continued to remain practically uncared for. ( 12 ) FIRST, statement of one Mr. Chandgotia was relied upon. But such statement was not free from inherent contradictions. ( 11 ) IT cannot be denied that there are gross inconsistencies in the materials before the authority concerned. The latent wounds could not be healed up. The inherent defects continued to remain practically uncared for. ( 12 ) FIRST, statement of one Mr. Chandgotia was relied upon. But such statement was not free from inherent contradictions. ( 13 ) SECONDLY, in spite of drawing attention of the authority no step was taken for getting the said Mr. Chandgotia examined. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegation and the consequence thereof, it cannot be denied that denial of an opportunity to examine such a vital witness certainly amounts to denial of natural justice. ( 14 ) IT is found that the respondent was carrying on business at 7, Bysack Street, Kolkata-700 007 and filed returns up to the period four quarters ending 31st March, 2002 and on that basis, assessment had also been completed. It is also significant to note that some other concerns also carry on business from the same place. ( 15 ) IN such background, it is difficult to justify such action in the way of cancellation of registration without giving the respondent a proper opportunity to defend himself. The learned Tribunal took note of the fact that"non-production of such account or non-availability of such document at the place of business cannot be a ground for cancellation of registration certificate though it might be one of the circumstances for taking into consideration along with other factors prevailing to support the allegation of discontinuance of the business in question". ( 16 ) IT may be interesting to refer to relevant observation made by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment which is as follows :"at the time of inspection a sign board was found to be displaced showing the names of three concerns, viz. , (1) Rajesh Processing, (2) Maheswari Commercial Services and (3) Shri Balaji Commercial Services. The registration certificates for the first two organisations still stand valid whereas presumption was taken that there was no existence of the third concern, i. e. , the business of the petitioner since the room was found to be occupied by some other who carry on saree business. " ( 17 ) LEARNED Tribunal found the step taken by the authority concerned relying on the statement allegedly made by one, Mr. Chandgotia as perfunctory. " ( 17 ) LEARNED Tribunal found the step taken by the authority concerned relying on the statement allegedly made by one, Mr. Chandgotia as perfunctory. In the words of the learned Tribunal "it is biased and motivated". We find it difficult to hold that the step against the respondent in the backdrop of the present case was not harsh and certainly it was not done following the principles of natural justice. ( 18 ) CONSIDERING all these aspects we find little merit in the grievances as ventilated on behalf of the present petitioner/state authorities. ( 19 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order dated August 28, 2002, passed in R. N. Case No. 235 of 2002 stands affirmed and the present application being W. P. T. T. No. 954 of 2004 be dismissed on contest. No order as to costs.