ORDER Ramesh Ranganathan, JJ. The order of the first respondent dated July 26, 2010, cancelling the VAT registration granted earlier to the petitioner, and her failure to issue way bills, is under challenge in this writ petition as being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner, a partnership-firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of PVC pipes, is an assessee on the rolls of the first respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). They purchased a sick unit, hitherto owned by the third respondent, in a public auction conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) in exercise of its powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. It is the petitioner's case that, on payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 52.56 lakhs, the APSFC had executed a sale deed dated November 2, 2009 in their favour; the factory premises consisting of land admeasuring 6000 sq. meters in plot Nos. 50, 51, 52, 54, 55 and 56 covered by Sy. No. 448/2, 449/2 and 450/2 situated in the Industrial Estate, Chityala, Nalgonda District along with plant and machinery, were handed over to them; and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property ever since. The petitioner sought registration as a VAT dealer in the name and style of "Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Industries", and filed an application in form VAT 100 before the first respondent who registered the petitioner as a VAT dealer on April 28, 2010 with effect from May 1, 2010. It is the petitioner's grievance that, despite registration, no way-bills were issued by the first respondent on the ground that the registration granted earlier was cancelled. It is the petitioner's grievance that, despite registration, no way-bills were issued by the first respondent on the ground that the registration granted earlier was cancelled. The petitioner would contend that they were not aware of cancellation of the registration till then; subsequently the first respondent, by endorsement dated August 27, 2010, had informed them that cancellation of registration was in view of the interim order of status quo passed in W.P. No. 21567 of 2009 dated February 25, 2010; the said endorsement allegedly sent by registered post was returned unserved on the ground that they were not available at the address for 10 days; this was followed by notice dated September 3, 2010, whereby their request for issue of way-bills was allegedly refused; they did not receive the notice in original, but a photostat copy thereof was given to them later; a certified copy of the cancellation order dated July 26, 2010 was furnished to them on November 9, 2010; and, despite filing an application under the Right to Information Act, neither was a copy of the notice in form VAT 125, nor the cover alleged to have been returned unserved, made available to them. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had filed W.P. No. 21567 of 2009 challenging the proposed action of the fourth respondent, in handing over the lock and keys of the factory premises to third parties without notice to them, as being illegal; this court, in its order dated October 13, 2009, had held that the plant and machinery was handed over on October 5, 2009, to the successful bidder in the auction conducted as per the notification dated June 11, 2009, but had observed that, since the petitioner's counsel was disputing handing over of possession to third parties, possession shall not be handed over for a period of one week, if possession in fact had not been handed over; and subsequently, on a vacate stay petition being filed by the APSFC, this court, by order dated February 25, 2010, had directed the parties to maintain status quo as on February 25, 2010. The petitioner would submit that W.P. No. 25329 of 2009 was filed by the third respondent challenging the notice issued by APSFC dated November 12, 2009 demanding Rs. 113.22 lakhs; initially this court granted interim stay subject to the condition that Rs. The petitioner would submit that W.P. No. 25329 of 2009 was filed by the third respondent challenging the notice issued by APSFC dated November 12, 2009 demanding Rs. 113.22 lakhs; initially this court granted interim stay subject to the condition that Rs. 35 lakhs was deposited; and, as the third respondent had failed to deposit the said amount, the stay granted earlier was vacated. W.P.M.P. No. 6397 of 2009 filed subsequently was also rejected, by order dated March 11, 2010, on the ground that the prayer sought therein was beyond the scope of the writ petition; W.A. No. 290 of 2010 filed there-against was also dismissed observing that, as the assets were already handed over to a person who was not a party to the litigation, the court would not interfere and grant relief. It is the petitioner's specific case that they were in possession as on February 25, 2010, i.e., the date of the status quo order, and, as such, the first respondent could not have cancelled the certificate of registration granted in their favour; the certified copy of the order of cancellation of registration dated September 25, 2010 is bereft of reasons; copies of the show-cause notice in form VAT 125 proposing cancellation of registration, and the final order in form 124, were not furnished despite a specific request; and the action of the first respondent was illegal. In her counter-affidavit, the first respondent would submit that pursuant to the letter dated May 18, 2010, which she received from the counsel for the third respondent, she had issued a show-cause notice proposing to cancel registration on the ground that the title to the business premises was in dispute; the said notice sent by RPAD on May 19, 2010, to the address mentioned in the registration certificate, was returned unserved with the endorsement "insufficient address"; as there was no response she had passed orders on July 26, 2010 cancelling the registration; a copy of the said order dated July 26, 2010 was also sent to the same address, but was returned unserved; the petitioner had again applied for registration on August 20, 2010; in response thereto she had, vide endorsement dated August 27, 2010, informed the petitioner that, as she had already passed an order of cancellation, she could not interfere with the said order; the said order dated August 27, 2010 sent by RPAD was also returned unserved; the petitioner's application for statutory forms was rejected by proceedings dated September 3, 2010 on the ground that registration itself was cancelled; and this letter, sent to the very same address, was received by the petitioner. In their reply affidavit the petitioner would detail the circumstances under which a fresh application seeking registration was filed. It is unnecessary for this court to examine these aspects for, if the earlier order of cancellation of registration is held to be illegal, the subsequent submission of another application seeking registration would be of little consequence. It is, however, necessary to note that a reference is made therein to the copy of the show-cause notice, copy of the cancellation order, copies of the registered envelopes which the first respondent states had been returned unserved by the postal authorities. The petitioner would contest the averment of the first respondent that the notice proposing cancellation in form 125 dated May 19, 2010 was sent to them by RPAD on May 19, 2010 itself. The petitioner would contest the averment of the first respondent that the notice proposing cancellation in form 125 dated May 19, 2010 was sent to them by RPAD on May 19, 2010 itself. According to the petitioner the covers and documents, submitted along with the counter-affidavit, do not show any such notice having been sent by RPAD on May 19, 2010; both the registered envelopes, alleged to contain the show-cause notice dated May 19, 2010 and the cancellation order dated July 26, 2010, were sent only on August 9, 2010 which established that, despite the mandate of section 19 of the Act, they were not put on notice before the certificate of registration was cancelled; the first respondent's averment on oath that the notice dated May 19, 2010 was sent by RPAD was not only false, but was also an attempt to mislead this court; these false averments on oath amounted to perjury; the conduct of the postman was also suspect; as both the covers were sent on the same day, and both of them reflect the very same endorsement of the postman that the address mentioned was insufficient, there was no necessity for the postman to make so many visits only to find the petitioner continuously absent for 10 days, and then return the envelope; the registered envelope, alleged to contain the endorsement dated August 27, 2010, was sent to a wrong address mentioning the plot number as 3220 instead of 3 and 20; though their address was at Vanasthalipuram, the words "Vanasthalipuram" was struck off from the envelope; while the registered envelope containing the show-cause notice, the cancellation order and the endorsement are alleged to have been returned unserved, the notice dated September 3, 2010 was served on them by the postal authorities at the very same address; if, indeed, the registered envelopes were returned unserved by the postal authorities the first respondent ought not to have opened them as they are required to be preserved; as the envelopes have already been opened it is not possible to ascertain whether the first respondent had sent the notice proposing cancellation, the cancellation order, and the endorsement or merely empty covers. Curiously the first respondent has taken a contrary stand in the additional counter-affidavit filed by her. Curiously the first respondent has taken a contrary stand in the additional counter-affidavit filed by her. While in the counter-affidavit filed earlier she had stated that the notice, proposing cancellation of the certificate of registration, was sent to the petitioner on May 19, 2010 by RPAD, it is her case in the additional counter-affidavit that the said notice dated May 19, 2010 was sent by certificate of posting on May 20, 2010. While she would assert that, immediately thereafter, she had sent a copy of the notice dated May 19, 2010 again by RAPD, the date on which the notice was sent again by RPAD is not reflected in the additional counter-affidavit. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that authorities resort to the "certificate of posting" route for service of notices only to avoid producing proof of service. That this method of service is capable of abuse is not in dispute. "Certificate of posting" is not one of the prescribed modes of service of notices under rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules. The bona fides of the first respondent, in initially contending that the show-cause notice was sent by RPAD and then taking a "U" turn to submit, in the additional counter-affidavit, that the show-cause notice was sent by certificate of posting, is suspect. We are, prima facie, of the view that the several contradictions, in the counter-affidavit vis-a-vis the additional counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, reflect her endeavour to mislead this court, and to avoid being proceeded against for perjury. We had therefore, by order dated January 25, 2011, directed appearance of the first respondent, and for production of the file relating to the cancellation order. However the relevant records, including the despatch register, were not produced. Section 19(2) of the Act enables the prescribed authority, for good and sufficient reason, to cancel, modify or amend any certificate of registration issued by him, provided that no order shall be passed thereunder without giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The statutory prescription of section 19(2) of the Act is that the dealer should first be put on notice, be given an opportunity of being heard, and only thereafter is the prescribed authority entitled to cancel registration, that too only if he is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons to do so. The statutory prescription of section 19(2) of the Act is that the dealer should first be put on notice, be given an opportunity of being heard, and only thereafter is the prescribed authority entitled to cancel registration, that too only if he is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons to do so. Admittedly, the show-cause notice dated May 19, 2010 was not even served on the petitioner before the certificate of registration was cancelled. As the petitioner was neither put on notice nor given an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order of cancellation of registration dated July 26, 2010 falls foul of the statutory requirement of section 19(2) of the Act and is therefore, quashed. That leaves us with the action to be taken against the first respondent for her having resorted to falsehood only in order to justify her illegal act of cancelling the petitioner's certificate of registration in contravention of section 19(2) of the Act. The Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes appearing on behalf of the first respondent, (who is present in court), would submit that she expresses regret for her acts and seeks pardon of the court. While such acts would have necessitated being dealt with sternly, we have taken a lenient view considering the fact that the first respondent is more than 57 years of age, and she is on the verge of retirement from service. For her attempts to show the petitioner in poor light, only with a view to escape blame for her illegal acts, we consider it appropriate to impose exemplary costs quantified as Rs. 5,000 which the first respondent shall pay from her pocket to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority, if he so chooses, from taking action in accordance with section 19(2) of the Act. The writ petition is allowed with exemplary costs. Memorandum of costs W.P. No. 32140 of 2010. Petitioner's (....) Rs. Stamp used for the writ petition ... Stamp of Vakalatnama ... Stamp on enclosures ... Advocate's fees (as quantified by the court) ... Batta and postage 50,000 Total 50,000 The first respondent do pay from her pocket a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today.