JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. By way of present Tax Appeal, the appellant is challenging the validity of an order passed by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal dated 24.12.2014 passed in Second Appeals Nos. 940 and 941 of 2014. While admitting the Tax Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court has framed following substantial question of law for consideration. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no requirement for service of any notice in accordance with Form No. 104 as contemplated under sub-rule (3) of rule 10 of the rules before cancellation of registration of the assessee under sub-section (5) of section 27 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003?" For considering the same, we may refer to the facts of the case. 2. The appellant herein is a private limited company dealing in the business of dyes and chemicals and for the same purpose, the appellant had obtained TIN number from the VAT Authority. It is the case of the appellant that the TIN number granted by the authority came to be canceled by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Range-III, Ahmedabad vide order dated 14.03.2014 in exercise of powers under section 100 and section 27(5)(i) of the VAT Act. The said cancellation was based upon the main ground that two dealers with whom the appellant has dealt with in past, their TIN numbers have been canceled by the department ab initio and based upon that, the authority has passed an order dated 14.03.2014 with respect to the present appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, First Appeal came to be filed before Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax by the present appellant, who, according to the appellant, without entering into merits of the case, had disposed of the appeal vide order dated 21.08.2014 only on the ground that the registration certificate of the appellant was canceled ab initio, hence nothing more is required to be dealt with and the first Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.08.2014. 3. The appellant feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the first Appellate Authority, preferred Second Appeal before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, being Second Appeals No. 940 of 2014 and 941 of 2014. 3. The appellant feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the first Appellate Authority, preferred Second Appeal before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad, being Second Appeals No. 940 of 2014 and 941 of 2014. The learned VAT Tribunal upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, has dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant by judgment and order dated 24.12.2014 and it is against that order passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant has brought present tax appeal before this Court. It is the case of the appellant that the Appellate Authority without going into merit of the case, has dismissed the appeal exclusively on the ground that Deputy Commissioner canceled the TIN number ab initio. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority has committed grave error in not examining the merit of the case and simply disposed of the appeal on the premise that the dealers with whom the appellants had dealt with in past, their TIN numbers were canceled ab initio void. It was also contended by the counsel for the appellant that business of the appellant is the seasonal business and therefore, he visits the business place only during the season of cotton seeds oil. The authority had not provided appropriate opportunity at the relevant point of time and merely has proceeded to record the statement at site of one Mr. Ramesh Ambalal Patel, who was not having any material or information. Learned Tribunal has erred in not granting opportunity to the appellant. It was also contended by the counsel for the appellant that under the provisions of the VAT Act, under section 100 read with section 27(5)(I), the specific procedure is prescribed to deal with such a situation and by submitting that the counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court about the rule No. 10 which deals with cancellation or suspension of certificate of registration and based upon this, the counsel submitted that the authorities have not considered whether before taking any action, there is compliance of this rule. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that if the Commissioner intends to cancel or suspend the registration of any dealer under section 27(5) or 27(5A) of the Act, then first of all, there must be a reflection of intention of the Commissioner to cancel the registration and secondly, to implement that intention, it is required to communicate form No. 104 as prescribed under rule 10(3) of the rules. The counsel submitted that the word 'shall' which has been mentioned in this rule is giving mandate to the authority to comply with this procedure of issuance of form No. 104. By drawing attention to this rule, it is submitted by the counsel that the Deputy Commissioner while passing the original order, has not followed this procedure which has been provided under the statutory rules and therefore, this aspect having lost sight of the Tribunal, the order deserves to be corrected. Learned counsel further submitted and drawn the attention of the Court about effect of rule 21, sub-rule 4(b) of the rules, which again deals with an issue that whether the registration of any dealer is to be canceled on the ground referred to under sub-section (5) of section 27, then the last monthly form, or as the case may be, quarterly return was for the period from the month or as the case may be, and such return shall be furnished within 22 days from the date of cancellation of the registration or within 22 days from the end of the month or as the return relates. The fact that the Deputy Commissioner has not considered this material and since the learned Tribunal has not considered these aspects, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be corrected. It was also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel that the present appellant has purchased the goods from two registered dealers; one M/s. Laxmi Corporation and another M/s. Khodiyar Traders and it has been contended that when the appellant has dealt with these two registered dealers, their registration was in operation and therefore, the effect of subsequent cancellation of registration of those two dealers would not have any bearing upon transaction which the present appellant had entered into. Learned counsel has drawn attention that in a similar situation, in the case of Mit Traders v. State of Gujarat, passed in Special Civil Application No. 14739 of 2012 vide an order dated 05.11.2012, this Court has dealt with this very issue and therefore, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that orders passed by the authorities are required to be corrected. Learned counsel has further contended that at no point of time, any opportunity was given or even an indication is give that the registration is sought to be canceled by the authority and therefore, counsel contended that qua this issue or cancellation of registration, no opportunity of effective representation and hearing is given and that being the situation, the order of cancellation of registration deserves to be set aside since this material aspect touching the root of controversy has not been properly-dealt with by the learned Tribunal, the learned counsel submitted that order requires to be interfered with. 4. As against this, the learned AGP Mr. Pranav Trivedi has contended before this Court that the appellant was given adequate and effective hearing and full opportunity was given to the appellant and it has been contended that from the beginning, the appellant was aware about the fact that the issue pertaining to these two traders was center of controversy. Learned AGP had contended that the Appellate Authority while dealing with an appeal, has brought to the notice of the appellant about this fact and granted effective opportunity. The appellant could have anticipated the ultimate outcome upon it. Learned counsel submitted that even if no opportunity at the relevant point of time is granted on the issue of cancellation of registration, then also, there is a substantial knowledge passed on to appellant, therefore compliance of principles of natural justice and the appellant could have anticipated the outcome of the said proceedings. Therefore, simply because no opportunity-is given qua the issue of cancellation of registration, it would make no difference as authorities below have considered the case of the appellant examined and has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was engaged in billing activity. Therefore, simply because no opportunity-is given qua the issue of cancellation of registration, it would make no difference as authorities below have considered the case of the appellant examined and has arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was engaged in billing activity. It was also contended by the learned AGP that the appellant dealt with those two dealers as named above, whose TIN numbers have been canceled ab initio and therefore also, granting of opportunity would not make any difference so far as ultimate decision arrived at by the authority is concerned and therefore, learned AGP submitted that there is a substantial compliance of natural justice and effective opportunity is granted, hence order in question does not call for any interference. However, one fact is candidly accepted that at no point of time, the appellant has ever been granted any opportunity on the issue of cancellation of registration, nor any authority has placed the appellant to the notice that ultimately his registration is sought to be canceled and therefore, considering this situation and by submitting this, the learned AGP requested the Court not to accept the appeal filed by the appellant. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that at the stage of passing the original order, neither the appellant was placed to the notice about his possible cancellation of registration, nor even at the stage of the appeal forum, such opportunity was afforded on that issue. What has been dealt with by the authorities below is pertaining to a different issue and not an issue pertaining to cancellation of registration. For this purpose, we may refer to the relevant provisions governing the issue; Rule 10 of the rules which deals with cancellation or suspension of certification of registration. We may reproduce the same as under: 10. Cancellation or suspension of certificate of registration (1) An application for cancellation of registration under sub-section (7) or sub-section (7A) of section 21 or sub-section (2) of section 27 shall be made to the registering authority in Form-103 within thirty days of contingency or event, which necessitates the cancellation of registration. We may reproduce the same as under: 10. Cancellation or suspension of certificate of registration (1) An application for cancellation of registration under sub-section (7) or sub-section (7A) of section 21 or sub-section (2) of section 27 shall be made to the registering authority in Form-103 within thirty days of contingency or event, which necessitates the cancellation of registration. (2) If the registering authority is satisfied that the application submitted under sub-rule (1) is in order, it shall by order in writing, cancel the registration with effect from the date, which may be fixed in accordance with the provision of sub-section (4) of section 27. (3) When the Commissioner intends to cancel or suspend the registration under sub-section (5) or (5A) of section 27, he shall give a notice to the dealer in Form 104. 6. Sub-rule (3) of rule 10 postulate a specific mandate to the authority that when the Commissioner intends to cancel or suspend the registration under sub-rule (5) or (5A) of section 27, he shall give a notice to the dealer with form No. 104. Undisputedly, therefore it appears from the record that such procedure has never been observed. Section 27(5) of the VAT Act is the main source of power to deal with suspension or cancellation of registration. If we read rule 21, sub-rule (4b) of the VAT Act it also refers to a certain procedure to be observed before taking decision with respect to cancellation or suspension of registration. From the record, it appears that the authority before canceling the registration of the appellant, has not observed this specific procedure as contained under the relevant rules referred above. It is settled position of law that if the statute commands the authority to do a particular act in a particular manner only, the authority is expected legitimately to undertake such act in that particular manner only. Here while passing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out and which is emerging from record that before cancellation of registration, no such procedure as prescribed by the statute, is observed. 7. It is also worth to be taken note of that principles of natural justice is applicable in whole range of exercise of powers, either it is administrative, quasi-judicial, or judicial. 7. It is also worth to be taken note of that principles of natural justice is applicable in whole range of exercise of powers, either it is administrative, quasi-judicial, or judicial. Here the record suggests that so far as the issue pertaining to cancellation of registration is concerned, the appellant has never been put to notice. Had the appellant been put to notice, he would have possibly offered some reasonable explanation. Before exercising statutory powers, the statutory authority is expected to scrupulously observe this principle of natural justice. The same not having been done in the present case, we are of the opinion that the authorities below have passed orders in violation of this basic principles of natural justice. The bare reading of the order of the Tribunal in question, more particularly, paragraphs No. 10 and 11, also reflects that the appellant was not served with the notice in form No. 104, which form relates to an issue with respect to cancellation of registration. Sub-rule (3) of rule 10, under which, form No. 104 is prescribed, wherein, the authorities are expected to put a dealer to the notice for cancellation or suspension of certificate of registration and the said form prescribes certain relevant material to be filled in, before which, action to be taken. Therefore, having failed to observe such procedure as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the statute stated above, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself and passed the impugned order. No doubt, the record emerges that the appellant was put to notice in form No. 401 and 309, but so far as material issue pertaining to form No. 104, it is undisputed position that no such procedure as required under the law is undertaken. We are not on the form, but substance of the opportunity being given. Even if not in precise in form No. 104 where in any other manner, notice was issued to the assessee that for the tentative reasons indicated in the communication, his registration is liable to be canceled, the department's contention that reasonable opportunity-was given could have been considered. In the present case however, no notice either in form No. 104, or any-other manner was issued to the petitioner why the registration should not be canceled. In the present case however, no notice either in form No. 104, or any-other manner was issued to the petitioner why the registration should not be canceled. The reasonable opportunity concept is brushed aside before taking action against the appellant and therefore, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside hereby. We may observe that despite above circumstance, we may allow impugned orders to operate, then indirectly we are recognizing post decisional hearing issue which is not envisaged in any of the rules referred to above. Rule of natural justice demands that at a stage where it is to be observed authority has to observe at that stage only subsequent grant of opportunity will not cure the defect. 8. The Court observed while passing this order that there is some element of grievance by the department that despite notices in form No. 401 and 309 have been given, the present appellant had not responded to, but we may leave it open for the authority to take appropriate action in this regard. However, so far as cancellation of registration issue is concerned, the Court is constrained in the background of aforesaid facts to quash and set aside the impugned orders and accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the appellant and tax appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. In view of the fact that since main Tax Appeal is disposed of, Civil Application (OJ) No. 551 of 2015 would not survive and hence disposed of accordingly.