Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3898 (ALL)

Lokesh Kumar & Brothers v. State of U. P.

2015-12-09

TARUN AGARWALA, VINOD KUMAR MISRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Based on a survey made on 6.11.2015 the registration of the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 10.11.2015 and a show cause notice of the same date was also issued to show cause why his registration should not be cancelled. The petitioner, being aggrieved by issuance of the aforesaid notices suspending his registration and initiating steps for cancellation of his registration, has filed the present writ petition contending that on the Department's website the petitioner's license has been shown to be suspended w.e.f. 7.11.2015 and therefore there is a presumption that a decision to suspend the license was taken on 7.11.2015 prior to initiation of the proceedings for cancellation of the registration under Section 17(11) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. It was further contended that a notice for cancellation for registration has to be done in accordance with the procedure laid out in Rule 72 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 which procedure has not been followed and instead of serving the notice upon the dealer it has been served upon the petitioner's father, which is not the correct procedure. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion, that sufficient service was made upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 72 of the Rules. We are of the opinion that service made upon the petitioner's father who is an adult comes within the four corners of the procedure prescribed under Rule 72 of the Rules. It is, therefore, incorrect to state that the service was not properly done. In so far as the date indicated on the website is concerned, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be a concrete proof of the fact that the petitioner's registration was suspended on 7.11.2015. Information displayed on the website could be incorrect and cannot be a proof of the fact that the petitioner's license was suspended on 7.11.2015 especially when a notice dated 10.11.2015 was actually issued. 3. In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 4. The writ petition is dismissed.