JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee revisionist and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The registration of the assessee revisionist under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax vide order dated 6.2.2015. The said order has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.5.2015 and the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal arising there from vide order dated 24.9.2015. 3. The above all the three orders have been impugned in this revision raising the following question of law: 4. Whether the authorities were competent to cancel the registration of the petitioner without serving a notice of the proceedings by registered post as contemplated by Rule 72 of the Rules framed under the Act? 5. On the earlier occasion on the statement and the ground taken that the assessee revisionist was not served with any notice before passing the impugned order dated 6.2.2015, the Court had directed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions and to produce the record. 6. Learned Standing Counsel is possessed of the record. 7. The record reveals that a notice through process server was sent to the assessee revisionist but the same was not accepted and the service was deemed to be sufficient by refusal. However, there is nothing on record to show that any notice of the proceedings was sent to the assessee revisionist by registered post. 8. Rule 72 of the Rules framed under the Act provides for the mode of service of notice of the proceedings under the Act. 9. In addition to the service of notice of the proceedings through process server Sub-Rule (h) of Rule 72 provides that the authorities shall simultaneously issue notice, order or summon for service by post. 10. The aforesaid Sub-Rule (h) of Rule 72 of the Rules clearly envisages that in addition to the personal service through process server, sending of notice by registered post is mandatory. 11. This mandatory provision has not been followed in the present case as is evident from the record produced. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of assessee revisionist that he was not served with any notice of the proceedings has force. 11. This mandatory provision has not been followed in the present case as is evident from the record produced. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the contention of assessee revisionist that he was not served with any notice of the proceedings has force. Accordingly, as the service of notice by post is mandatory and in addition to service by process server, the above question is answered in favour of the assessee revisionist and against the revenue holding that the authority was not competent to cancel the registration of the assessee/revisionist without issuing notice to him by registered post simply on the basis of service of process server by refusal. 13. The impugned orders dated 6.2.2015, 15.5.2015 and 24.9.2015 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Kanpur for a fresh decision in accordance with law but as the assessee revisionist is already aware of the proceedings it will not be necessary for the Assistant Commissioner to serve any fresh notice upon him. He shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax within 15 days from today and participate in the proceedings for passing of the final order. 14. The revision is allowed. ———————