Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled by the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 29.6.2011, without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that a notice had been sent to the petitioner, on 23.6.2011, requesting the petitioner to furnish the Permanent Account Number, along with the necessary proof of the same, to the registering authority, within five days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It had also been stated that on the failure of the petitioner to furnish necessary particulars, the registration, under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, may be cancelled, as the Permanent Account Number had become mandatory, as per the amended sub Rule 9 (4) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Rules, made in G.O.Ms.No.50, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B1), dated 19.4.2010. However, the respondent had not been in a position to show, from the available records, that the notice, dated 22.6.2011, sent on 23.6.2011, had been served, as per the procedures prescribed, under Rule 19 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, for such service. 4. In such circumstances, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 29.6.2011. However, it would be open to the respondent to issue a fresh notice, if so advised, requesting the petitioner to furnish the Permanent Account Number, along with the necessary proof, within a specified time. Thereafter, it would be open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders, as per law. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.