ORDER M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these petitions and with respect to the same dealer but with respect to registration certificates under VAT Act as well as CST Act, both these petitions are heard, decided and disposed of by this common order. That the common petitioner - dealer was having registration certificate under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the VAT Act" for convenience) as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act" for short). That the said registrations wee obtained for trading and selling coconut, food-grains, pulses, grocery, tea, sugar, etc. at Botad in Bhavnagar District. The petitioner dealer was holding the said registration certificates from 1/7/2002 under the GST Act/VAT Act and from 1/7/2002 under the CST Act. 1.1 That after a period of one year, on 22/7/2003, the petitioner applied to add branch office at Surat and accordingly Surat was added as the place of business. That after a period of three months from the date of obtaining registration certificates, on 22/11/2003, the petitioner-dealer applied to add goods to be dealt with in the business namely silver-thread, plastics, all types of thread, strings, ready-made garments, weight paper, plastic scrap, etc. 1.2 That in the year 2008, the main place of the business of the petitioner dealer namely Botad was visited by the offices of the respondent and it was found that the sign board of the petitioner - dealer was there on the shop but the man sitting there i.e. one Mr. Munaf was selling vegetables and he told the officer that the said shop was taken by him on rent from one Mr. Anvarbhai before 15 days. 1.3 That considering the returns for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, it is found that the petitioner dealer had done alleged purchases mainly from M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise, whose registrations were cancelled ab-initio, as they were found to be indulged into billing activities only and since they were not doing any business and were issuing bills only. Thus, the officers were of the view that after getting registration, the petitioner dealer had indulged into activities of getting and issuing merely bills i.e., billing activities only and in fact not entered into transactions of sales and purchases. Thus, the officers were of the view that after getting registration, the petitioner dealer had indulged into activities of getting and issuing merely bills i.e., billing activities only and in fact not entered into transactions of sales and purchases. 1.4 That therefore, notice under section 29(2) was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Botad to the petitioner - dealer asking him to remain present before him on 30/6/2008 and to show cause as to why security of Rs. 10 Lacs should not be taken from him for security of the government revenue. 1.5 That separate notices in the Form No. 401 for the A.Ys. 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were also issued on 12/6/2008 by the same officer asking him to produce bills for purchase, sales, TIN Number and evidence showing payment etc. 1.6 That the petitioner dealer replied to the same and thereafter the VAT Authority passed order under section 28(2) of the VAT Act on 14/8/2008 insisting that the petitioner should give security of Rs. 10 Lacs to secure the interest of the revenue. 1.7 That the against the said order dated 14/8/2008, the petitioner appealed unsuccessfully before the Commissioner and thereafter before the learned Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned tribunal"). 1.8 That in the meantime, since the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions of providing security, the registration came to be cancelled by order dated 16/4/2010. 1.9 That against the order passed by the first authority, confirming the order passed by the CAT Authority, passed under section 28(2) of the VAT Act, directing the petitioner to furnish security of Rs. 10 Lacs, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned tribunal. 1.10 That the learned tribunal dismissed the said appeals, against which the petitioner preferred appeals before this Court being Tax Appeal Nos. 14 and 46 of 2014. That in the meantime, after following due procedure as required and after giving opportunity to the petitioner-dealer, the concerned authority under the VAT Act cancelled the registrations, both under the VAT Act as well as CST Act ab-initio, by order dated 21/4/2010. 1.11 That the aforesaid Tax Appeal Nos. 14 and 46 of 2014. That in the meantime, after following due procedure as required and after giving opportunity to the petitioner-dealer, the concerned authority under the VAT Act cancelled the registrations, both under the VAT Act as well as CST Act ab-initio, by order dated 21/4/2010. 1.11 That the aforesaid Tax Appeal Nos. 14 and 46 of 2014 came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench vide order dated 21/3/2014 disposed of the aforesaid Tax Appeals, modifying the conditions imposed by the VAT authority requiring the petitioner-dealer to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 2 Lacs in terms of section 28(2) of the VAT Act. Both the appeals came to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, the Division Bench did not expressed any opinion on the action of the authority in cancelling the registrations ab-initio. 1.12 At this stage, it is required to be noted that it was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that their registration certificates under the VAT Act as well as CST Act have been cancelled ab-initio for which separate proceedings are initiated. Therefore, the Division Bench specifically clarified that the aforesaid order shall have effect only if the said cancellation is set aside. 1.13 That the order cancelling the registration certificates ab-initio under the VAT Act as well as CST Act were the subject matter of Revision Applications before the learned tribunal being Revision Application Nos. 58 and 58 of 2010. 1.14 That by the impugned judgment and order, the learned tribunal has dismissed the said Revision Applications confirming the orders cancelling the registration certificates under the VAT Act as well as CST Act, ab-initio. Hence, the common petitioner - dealer has preferred both these Special Civil Applications challenging the order passed by the learned tribunal in dismissing the Revision Applications and confirming the orders cancelling the registration certificates under the VAT Act as well as CST Act. 2. Mr. Manish Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the common petitioner-dealer has vehemently submitted that the order cancelling the registration certificates under the VAT Act as well as CST Act ab-initio are absolutely illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 Mr. 2. Mr. Manish Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the common petitioner-dealer has vehemently submitted that the order cancelling the registration certificates under the VAT Act as well as CST Act ab-initio are absolutely illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 Mr. Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer has further submitted that the registration certificates of the petitioner under the VAT Act as well as CST Act have been cancelled ab-initio mainly and solely on the ground that the petitioner has purchased goods from M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise, who were found to be indulged into billing activities only and their registration certificates have been cancelled ab-initio. It is submitted that on the aforesaid ground, registration certificates of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. 2.2 Mr. Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer has further submitted that at the time when the petitioner purchased the goods from the aforesaid two parties, both of them were having registration certificates and both of them were registered dealers and therefore, if subsequently their registration certificates have been cancelled ab-initio with retrospective effect, merely on that ground, the purchases made by the petitioner from the said two dealers cannot be doubted and it cannot be said that the petitioner has also indulged into billing activities only. It is submitted that on the aforesaid ground registration certificates of the petitioner cannot be cancelled ab-initio. 2.3 In support of his above submissions, Mr. Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Co. 1998 taxmann.com 1747 as well as decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Giriraj Sales Corpn. v. State of Gujarat [2002] 125 STC 369. 2.4 Mr. Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer has further submitted that even otherwise also, the impugned orders cancelling the registration certificates ab-initio is bad in law and in breach of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that statement of proprietors of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise which have been relied upon by the authority, have never been supplied to the petitioner - dealer. It is submitted that statement of proprietors of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise which have been relied upon by the authority, have never been supplied to the petitioner - dealer. It is submitted that therefore when the aforesaid statements of the proprietors of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise have been considered by the appropriate authority while cancelling the registration certificates of the petitioner and copy of which have not been supplied to the petitioner, the order cancelling the registration certificates ab-initio, is in breach of principles of natural justice. 2.5 Mr. Kaji, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer has further submitted that the learned tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that in fact, the petitioner had shifted his place of business from Surat to Botad and therefore necessary materials/documents were at Surat office. It is submitted that therefore, naturally at Botad office necessary documents/materials may not be available. It is submitted that merely because at the Botad office no material/record was found, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is not doing business and is indulged into billing activities only. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow both these Special Civil Applications. 3. Both these petitions are opposed by Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat. He has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when it is found that the petitioner had indulged into billing activities only and has shown purchase from dealers, whose registrations were cancelled ab-initio, as they were found to be indulged into billing activities only, no error has been committed by the authorities below in cancelling the registration certificates. It is submitted that as such the petitioner was aware of the fact that the registration certificates of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise have been cancelled ab-initio, from whom he has shown to have made purchases. 3.1 Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat has further submitted that even the petitioner - dealer had made purchases of Rs. 3.1 Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat has further submitted that even the petitioner - dealer had made purchases of Rs. 104.19 Lacs in the year 2007-2008 from M/s. Vishal Traders after its registration were cancelled on 1/4/2007 and said transactions were through the Bank at Surat and the petitioner did not disclose his Bank Account at Surat and only Bank Account at Botad was declared/disclosed in which there was no transaction shown. It is submitted that, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as such the orders cancelling the registration certificates ab-initio cannot be said to be illegal and/or erroneous. 3.2 Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, none of the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - dealer shall be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall be of any assistance to the petitioner - dealer. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Applications. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 4.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the registration certificates of the petitioner under the VAT Act as well as CST Act have been cancelled ab-initio. The orders cancelling the registration certificates ab-initio have been confirmed upto the learned tribunal. From the findings recorded by the learned tribunal, which is not denied and/or disputed, the petitioner had shown/made purchases of Rs. 104.19 Lacs in the year 2007-2008 from M/s. Vishal Traders and made after its registration certificates were cancelled on 1/4/2007. It is required to be noted that registration certificates of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise have been cancelled ab-initio, as it was found that they had indulged into billing activities only. It is required to be noted that, therefore, M/s. Vishal Traders was not competent to issue tax invoices once its registrations were cancelled. As rightly observed by the learned tribunal, the petitioner dealer was not entitled to obtain tax invoices after knowing that registration of M/s. Vishal Traders have been cancelled. It is required to be noted that, therefore, M/s. Vishal Traders was not competent to issue tax invoices once its registrations were cancelled. As rightly observed by the learned tribunal, the petitioner dealer was not entitled to obtain tax invoices after knowing that registration of M/s. Vishal Traders have been cancelled. 4.2 It is required to be noted that the petitioner dealer had disclosed/declared only one Bank Account at Botad, however, on inquiry it has been found that all the transactions by the petitioner were from Surat Bank Account, which was not declared/disclosed by the petitioner. The name and particulars of the Bank at Surat were not intimated by the petitioner to the authority. It is required to be noted that though number of opportunities were given by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Circle 19, Bhavnagar, the petitioner did not remain present. Therefore, the Dy. Commissioner, Bhavnagar considered the entire records and having found and satisfied that the alleged purchases by the petitioner from M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise were not genuine and/or same were billing activities only and the transactions were not genuine and even the petitioner dealer tried to defend the action of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise etc. therefore, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in confirming the order passed by the authority cancelling the registration certificates of the petitioner dealer under the VAT Act as well as CST Act ab-initio. 4.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the registration certificates of the petitioner dealer under the VAT Act as well as CST Act are rightly cancelled ab-initio, more particularly when the petitioner dealer has indulged into billing activities only of Rs. 104.19 Lacs from M/s. Vishal Traders and has indulged into billing activities only of Rs. 13,08,778/- from M/s. Shiv Enterprise, whose registrations were cancelled ab-initio and despite having knowledge that the registration certificates of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise have been cancelled ab-initio, the petitioner has shown purchases from the aforesaid M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise and had obtained/issued invoices and those transactions and purchases are found to be bogus and not genuine. 4.4 Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that as the copies of the statements of the proprietor of M/s. Vishal Traders, upon which reliance has been placed by the department, has not been supplied/issued to the petitioner, the order cancelling the registration certificates is in breach of the principles of natural justice, is concerned, it is required to be note that from the order passed by the authority cancelling the registration certificates, it appears that while cancelling the registration certificates, the authority has not relied upon the same. On the contrary, though sufficient opportunities have been given, the petitioner did not appear before the authority and did not produce relevant material/record to show genuineness of the transactions. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the authority cancelling the registration certificates ab-initio, is in breach of principles of natural justice. 4.5 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Trading Co. (supra) and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Giriraj Sales Corpn. (supra), are concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the said decisions shall not be applicable tot he facts of the case on hand and/or they are not of any assistance to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as observed by the learned tribunal, the petitioner dealer made the alleged purchases from M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise and though their registrations certificates were cancelled ab-initio and the petitioner had knowledge with respect to cancellation of the registration certificates of M/s. Vishal Traders and M/s. Shiv Enterprise. Under the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned tribunal confirming the order passed by the first authority cancelling the registration certificates of the petitioner under the VAT Act as well as CST Act ab-initio. In the result, both the petitions fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.