Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying that this Court may be pleased to call for and quash the impugned order, dated 13.01.2012, passed by the respondent and to permit the petitioner to run the business at the premises bearing No.184, N.S.C Bose Road, Chennai. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner has been carrying on his business at the premises bearing no.184, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai, in TIN No.33630201311 and CST No.918757, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Whileso, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 13.01.2012, cancelling the registration of the petitioner, retrospectively, without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Trading Company, (1998) 109 STC 439 S.C., to state that the registration of the petitioner cannot be cancelled, retrospectively. He had also relied on the decisions of this Court, in Indo Germa Products Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai, (2011) 45 VST 236 (Mad) and M/s.Suriya Service Station, Palloor, Mahe and others Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (2000) 3 M.L.J.409, to state that the cancellation of the registration cannot be done by the authority concerned, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer. He had also pointed out Clause 14 of Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, to show that the authority concerned cannot cancel, modify or amend any certificate of registration, except for good and sufficient reasons, and clause 15 of the said section, which states that such cancellation can be made only after the dealer concerned had been given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside. 5. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, had submitted that the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner had been done as it was found that such registration had been issued based on the false information given by the petitioner, relating to the rental agreement, in respect of the premises in which the petitioner is said to be carrying on his business and with regard to the letters of introduction submitted by the petitioner. 6. He had also submitted that a notice, dated 11.11.2011, had been issued to the petitioner asking him to produce the necessary records to substantiate his claims. An explanation, dated 22.11.2011, had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the respondent has not been in a position to show that the respondent has the power or the authority to cancel the registration of the petitioner, with retrospective effect, from 04.02.2011. Further, he has not been in a position to produce sufficient records to show that an opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner to substantiate his claims. 7. It is noted that one M.S.Yakubdeen, has filed a Miscellaneous Petition, in M.P.No.2 of 2012, seeking to implead himself as a party in the writ petition, stating that he has been carrying on his business at No.184, N.S.C.Bose Road, for the past eight years, as a tenant of Arulmigu Sundareswarar Thirukoil, having a valid licence to run such a business. 8. It has also been pointed out that a civil suit, in O.S.No.6565 of 2011, is pending on the file of Ist Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, with regard to the dispute relating to the possession of the property in question. It has also been pointed out that another suit, in O.S.No.7313 of 2011, has also been filed by the petitioner against Arulmigu Sundareswarar Thirukoil, with regard to the lease agreement entered into with the temple. Whileso, the respondent had passed the impugned order cancelling the registration of the petitioner, retrospectively, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 13.01.2012, is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. Whileso, the respondent had passed the impugned order cancelling the registration of the petitioner, retrospectively, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 13.01.2012, is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent, on 23.02.2012, along with all the relevant documents to substantiate his claims, pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, on 11.11.2011. Thereafter, the respondent shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner, if any, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, with regard to the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the observations made by this Court, in this order, shall not have any bearing on the decision to be rendered by the appropriate civil Court, in O.S.Nos.6565 of 2011 and 7313 of 2011. The Writ Petition is ordered, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.