Petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning Commercial Taxes Officer Circle "G" Jammu’s order no. 628/-33/CTO/G dated June 19, 2007, whereby petitioner’s CST registration had been cancelled and direction issued to it to surrender the CST registration certificates and unutilized statutory forms viz. "C Forms" if any. Show Cause Notice issued prior to June 19, 2007 order too has been assailed by the petitioner. 2. Respondents had been allowed time to file objections to the writ petition. They have, however, opted to go without objections. 3. On these petitions coming up for consideration on May 01, 2008, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, however, consented for taking up the petition for final disposal. 4. Petitioner’s learned counsel, Mr. K.S. Johal, submits that the learned Commercial Taxes Officer had neither considered the interim reply filed by the petitioner in answer to the show cause notice issued on June 06, 2007 nor had he provided personal hearing to the petitioner which had been specifically asked for and in that view of the matter the order impugned in the writ petition, having been passed without holding any enquiry in the matter and following the principles of natural justice was liable to be quashed being arbitrary, malafide and illegal. 5. Learned Advocate General, Mr. A.H. Naik, on the other hand, submits that the Commercial Taxes Officer had considered the reply filed by the petitioner and had taken a conscious decision which may not warrant interference. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Perusal of Commercial Taxes Officer’s order of June 19, 2007 indicates that he had proceeded to cancel CST registration of the petitioner proceeding on the premise that it had neither replied the show cause notice nor shown any cause as to why its registration be not cancelled. 8. In order to examine the sole issue which falls for consideration in this petition in view of the submissions made at the Bar as to whether the Commercial Taxes Officer had followed the principles of natural justice before cancelling CST registration of the petitioner, regard needs to be had to the interim reply which the petitioner had sent to Commercial Taxes Officer Circle "G" Jammu through its counsel, Mr. Rajiv B. Sharma. Rajiv B. Sharma. This reply which is referred by the Commercial Taxes Officer, in its order of June 19, 2007, reads thus: "Commercial Tax Officer, Circle G, Jammu. Subject: Cancellation of Registration Certificate. Ref: Your No. 521/eto/E dated 6/06/2007 For and on behalf of M/S Anil Tyre Co. Ltd IGC SIDCO Complex, Samba hereinafter called my client, 1 serve you the reply to your caption and the same is as follows: The Enquiry as directed by the Ld. Appellate Authority vide its order dated 30/01/2007, entails upon YOU to ascertain the authenticity/genuineness of the document filed with you and your contention in the caption notice is for an issue of fact dated 27/05/2007-as alleged-is a fresh issue and has no relevance to para 1 of the notice under reply. The interim reply is thus as under: 1. You have, given only SEVEN days time which is not enough in the interest of natural justice. At least 30 days time should have been given to fully submit the reply with details. 2. You notice says that your office is in "possession of some material". If the same are in connection with the enquiry as per the Order dated 30/01/2007 then the copies of the same is within right of my client as nothing can be read against for which the opportunity to defend is not given. 3. You have confirmed that during your inspection on 29/05/2007 the "factory was functioning but some clandestine activities are also going on". This is a serious charge and your have again not enclosed any proof of the clandestine activities. It is intimated that my client only manufactures TYRES and nothing else. 4. It is correct that no raw material was received between 27/05/2007 to 29/05/2007 and the stock register which was inspected by you is proof of that. Just because my client has not received the material for three days you are charging my client for evasion of taxes. WE do not agree with your conclusion in this matter. Again no documentary proof of the evasion of the taxes as alleged has been provided. You are requested to provide the same. 5. Please provide us the copies of the fake documents in your possession as charged by you for us to respond. 6. WE do not agree with your conclusion in this matter. Again no documentary proof of the evasion of the taxes as alleged has been provided. You are requested to provide the same. 5. Please provide us the copies of the fake documents in your possession as charged by you for us to respond. 6. That the raw material of the two trucks in question was delivered in the factory on 30/05/2007 and was taken in the stock register on the same day. The copies of the Lakhanpur Toll Receipts are enclosed for your verification. The Toll Tax was paid by the driver/s and was reimbursed by my client upon the presentation of the receipts. The copies of these Toll Tax receipts were also given to the office of Hon’ble DC Lakhanpur. After receiving the notice under reply the matter was taken up with the Truckers who also Faxed my client the copies of the Toll Tax Receipts towards proof of when they left through Lakhanpur border. From above facts it is clear that TWO trucks in question entered through Lakhanpur toll paid the toll tax, and the raw material was delivered in the factory and taken in the stock register of my client on 30/05/2007. Please note that Sub Section 4 (b) of S.7 of CST Act 1956 provides for cancellation of registration "for any other sufficient reason" and not "for any other reason" as mentioned by you. You have not given a single sufficient reason with proof to cancel the registration of my client. My client has given the documentary proof of your own deptt. to prove that the import of raw material is real and not based on fake documents. Based on the above my client requests you to not to cancel the CST registration. You are further requested that the personal hearing too be granted to my client before you take further action in the matter. In the interest of natural justice you will do the needful. The right to submit other and further documents/additional evidence is reserved during the personal hearing. Additionally please note that it has been intimated that trucks say more than 50, carrying the material of my client are checked and rechecked and have always been found correct and yet again my client has been branded with new set of allegations. Rajeev Bhushan Sharma, Advocate Cc: 1. Additionally please note that it has been intimated that trucks say more than 50, carrying the material of my client are checked and rechecked and have always been found correct and yet again my client has been branded with new set of allegations. Rajeev Bhushan Sharma, Advocate Cc: 1. The Commissioner Commercial Tax Jammu" Contents of Advocate’s communication sent on behalf of the petitioner to Commercial Taxes Officer indicates that while requesting for allowing some more time to the petitioner to file reply and seeking copies of the material which had been stated in the show cause notice, to be in possession of the Commercial Taxes Officer and on which he had proposed to cancel the CST registration of the petitioner, the petitioner had while replying the show cause notice urged that its CST registration was not liable to be cancelled inter alia because "no other sufficient reasons" as mentioned in Section 7 (4) (b) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 had been communicated or mentioned in the notice. Responding to the other allegations appearing in the show cause notice, the petitioner’s communication sent through its Advocate records its explanation as to why there was no entry of raw material between 27th of May, 2007 to 29th of May, 2007 in the stock register. Petitioner had urged that merely because the raw material had not been received by the petitioner for three days would not make him liable for evasion of taxes. It had been asserted by the petitioner that it had not been supplied the material or documents on the basis whereof it had been charged of the evasion of tax. Request for supplying of alleged fake documents and other material relied upon by the Commercial Taxes Officer had been reiterated in the communication. In regard to the allegations appearing in the show cause notice regarding incident of 27th of May, 2007 the reply in the communication had indicated that the raw material of the two trucks in questions had been delivered in the factory on May 30, 2007 and had been taken in the stock register on the same day. The copies of the Lakhanpur Toll Receipts too had been annexed with the communication. The toll tax had been stated to have been paid by the drivers and receipt thereof had also been given in the office of Deputy Commissioner Lakhanpur. The copies of the Lakhanpur Toll Receipts too had been annexed with the communication. The toll tax had been stated to have been paid by the drivers and receipt thereof had also been given in the office of Deputy Commissioner Lakhanpur. Towards the conclusion of its reply in the communication, the petitioner had asserted that trucks used by it for carrying material had on their checking and rechecking been found to be carrying material as per documents. 9. Commercial Taxes Officer, therefore, does not appear to be right when he records in his order of June 19, 2007 that the petitioner had not shown any cause as to why its registration certificate be not cancelled and no reply had been filed to the show cause notice which had been issued to it. 10. It appears that Commercial Taxes Officer Circle "G" Jammu had been conducting an enquiry pursuant to a remand order of January 31, 2007 of the appellate authority when his office appears to have come in, possession of some more material on the basis whereof it had been considered fit by him to proceed against the petitioner for cancellation of its CST registration. The Commercial Taxes Officer, in his eagerness to cancel petitioner’s CST registration, however, appears to have acted in haste in not responding to the petitioner’s written request for supplying it the documents and material sought for by him through its communication of June 11, 2007. He is further found to have ignored altogether the interim reply sent by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued to it which reply had broadly dealt with the issues raised in the show cause notice. Learned Commercial Taxes Officer, without addressing to the written request of the petitioner to supply it the sought for material and documents and without dealing with the reply which it had made in answer to the show cause notice through its communication of June 11, 2007, has hurriedly issued the impugned communication proceeding on a wrong premise that the petitioner had not replied the points raised in the show cause notice. 11. 11. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of June 19, 2007 cancelling petitioner’s registration has been rendered bad in law because of the omission of the Commercial Taxes Officer in not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and responded to its written request of supplying it the documents referred to in the show cause notice. While passing the impugned order, learned Commercial Taxes Officer, has violated the provisions of Section 7 (4) (b) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 12. For all what has been said above, Communication No. 628/-33/CTO/G dated 19.06.2007 issued by Commercial Taxes Office Circle "G" Jammu cancelling petitioner’s CST registration becomes unsustainable and needs to be quashed with liberty to the Commercial Taxes Officer to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law after affording it reasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter and dealing with petitioner’s request for supplying it the documents it had sought vide its communication of June 11, 2006. 13. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed quashing Commercial Taxes Officer Circle "G" Jammu’s Communication No. 628/-33/CTO/G dated 19.06.2007 leaving respondent No.6, the Commercial Taxes Officer free to proceed against the petitioner for cancellation of its CST registration, if warranted under law, after providing it reasonable opportunity of hearing and responding to his request of supplying it the material and documents relied upon in the show cause notice. Petitioner through its counsel is directed to appear before the Commercial Taxes Officer Circle "G" Jammu for further instructions on May 20, 2008.