Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is a registered dealer, under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and an assessee on the files of the respondent. The respondent had issued a certificate of registration, on 12.12.2008, bearing TIN No.33582764515, under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Pursuant to the registration, the petitioner firm has been undertaking several contract works such as pump altering, electrical and mechanical complaints, reconditioning of pumping units, cleaning and fitting of lamps etc., in the petrol bunks belonging to Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited, in Erode District. While so, the respondent had issued a notice in the month of January, 2011, proposing to cancel the registration certificate issued to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner had not filed the annual return, in Form-I-1, for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, as prescribed under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. In response to the said notice the petitioner had submitted the annual return in Form I-1, for the said years, showing exempted sales of Rs.5,25,000/-, for the year 2008-2009, and Rs.9,53,900/-, for the year 2009-2010. However, the respondent had once again issued a notice in the month of March, 2011, proposing to cancel the registration certificate of the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not filed the annual return in form I-1, for the year 2009-2010, as prescribed under the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 3. In response to the said notice, issued by the respondent, the petitioner had submitted a detailed letter, dated 30.3.2011, to the respondent, explaining the correct factual position. However, the respondent had cancelled the registration of the petitioner, by way of the impugned order, without giving reasons for such cancellation. 4. It had also been stated that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner before the registration had been cancelled by the respondent. 5. It had also been stated that the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be set aside for the reason that the said order had been passed, cancelling the registration of the petitioner, with retrospective effect. 6. 5. It had also been stated that the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be set aside for the reason that the said order had been passed, cancelling the registration of the petitioner, with retrospective effect. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had not refuted the claim of the petitioner that the impugned order had been passed by the respondent, without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Further, it is seen from the available records that no reasons have been stated in the impugned order of the respondent cancelling the registration of the petitioner. Further, the impugned order had been passed by the respondent canceling the registration of the petitioner, with retrospective effect, without having the power or the authority to do so. 7. Clause 14 of Section 39 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, makes it clear that the registration of a dealer can be cancelled only on the basis of sufficient reasons. However, the impugned order passed by the respondent does not contain such reasons, as contemplated under the said provision. Further, Clause 15 of Section 39 of the said Act, makes it clear that such cancellation can be made only after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the dealer. 8. It is also noted that, the impugned order is contrary to the principle laid down by this Court, reported in Indo Germa Products Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), 2011 (45) VST 236 (Mad). As such, the impugned order of the respondent is liable to be set aside. Hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the respondent to cancel the registration of the petitioner, as per law, after issuing an appropriate notice and by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.