JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. Petitioner is a proprietary concern and is a dealer of jewelry. The petitioner firm has been registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act 2003 (‘the VAT Act’ for short) as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act (‘the CST Act’ for short). The business premises of the petitioner firm were subjected to search operation by the VAT authorities on 27.06.2017, pursuant to which the petitioner's shop was sealed on the same day. The order of the authority of the said date sealing the premises is produced at Annexure: A. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that the authorities have no power under the VAT Act to seal the business premises. 2. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 27.06.2017 canceling the petitioner's registration under the VAT Act and the CST Act with effect from 22.06.2010 This order the petitioner has challenged, inter alia, on the grounds of no notice, no hearing and retrospective cancellation without any material on record. 3. We may consider the petitioner's two challenges on the basis of materials on record. With respect to the order dated 27.06.2017 sealing the business premises of the petitioner firm, counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the VAT Act, there is no power for sealing the premises. Before its amendment, vide Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 of the VAT Act contained such powers, however, legislature by the said amendment, has consciously removed such powers. If the authorities desired to inspect or even seize the accounts and other documents, they could have taken appropriate steps but in any case sealing of the premises was not within their power. 4. On the other hand, learned AGP submitted that there is strictly speaking no sealing of the premises and the seals were placed on the shop of the petitioner as part of an ongoing search operation. Section 67 of the VAT Act, prior to its amendment by the Amending Act 6 of 2006, contained detailed provisions authorizing the Commissioner to seal the premises including the office, shop, godown, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle under certain circumstances. Section 67 of the VAT Act, prior to its amendment by the Amending Act 6 of 2006, contained detailed provisions authorizing the Commissioner to seal the premises including the office, shop, godown, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle under certain circumstances. In particular, clause (vi) of sub-section(3) of section 67 provided that; “(3) Where the Commissioner, has reason to believe that— … … (c) books of account, registers or documents of any dealer may be destroyed, mutilated, altered, falsified or any sale or purchase by that dealer have been or may be suppressed, or any goods have not been or may not be accounted for in the books of account, registers or other documents required to be maintained under this Act, with a view to evade or attempt to evade payment of tax due under the earlier law or under this Act,— … … (vi) seal the premises including the office, shop, godown, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle leaves the place or is not available or fails or refuses to open it when called upon to do so, or causes or attempts to cause obstruction to the Commissioner or the authorized officer in the discharge of his duties under this section.” 5. However, by Amending Act 6 of 2006, section 67 was substituted from the original, in which, these powers are completely missing. Thus the legislature while reenacting section 67 consciously omitted the powers of the Commissioner for sealing such premises. The action of the authority to do so under its order dated 27.06.2017 was therefore illegal. We are unable to see from the order or even otherwise that the said action was taken as a part of an ongoing search. There is nothing in this order suggesting that the seal was put temporarily so that the search can be resumed after the brief break. Even otherwise, according to the respondents, the business premises do not have too many documents or articles. It is therefore not possible to appreciate why the search would have continued more than a month after it was initiated. 6. For such reasons, the said order dated 27.06.2017 is required to be set aside. 7. Coming to the question of cancellation of registration by order dated 27.06.2017, the petitioner's contention is that no notice was served to the petitioner before this order was passed. 6. For such reasons, the said order dated 27.06.2017 is required to be set aside. 7. Coming to the question of cancellation of registration by order dated 27.06.2017, the petitioner's contention is that no notice was served to the petitioner before this order was passed. In this respect, the respondents rely on a notice dated 23.03.2017 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Ahmedabad, conveying to the petitioner that for the assessment year 2016-17, the return filed by the petitioner shows zero sale and purchases. It would therefore appear that the petitioner's business has stopped. The petitioner should therefore appear with necessary documents before him on 12.04.2017 showing cause why the registration should not be cancelled. If the business had discontinued earlier, the registration would be cancelled from such date. The respondents also rely on a notice dated 12.06.2017 fixing date of hearing of said show cause notice on 19.06.2017 8. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has averred that the notice dated 23.03.2017 was never served on him and that he received the notice dated 12.06.2017 when he opened his business premises. This notice carried a stamp of delivery of 21.06.2017 Thus, the notice of hearing dated 19.06.2017 was delivered to the petitioner on 21.06.2017 The respondents have not controverted either of these two factual assertions. In other words, the respondents are unable to show any evidence of service of the first notice dated 23.03.2017 or of service of second notice dated 12.06.2017 before 19.06.2017 i.e. the date of hearing. 9. Under the circumstances, it becomes clear that the petitioner was not served with any notice of proposed cancellation of registration before such action was taken by the authority under order dated 27.06.2017 If the notice dated 23.03.2017 was not served and the notice dated 12.06.2017 of the hearing dated 19.06.2017 was served after the date had passed, clearly the petitioner had no opportunity to appear before the authority and to defend its position. 10. Quite apart from non service of notice, even otherwise, the order of cancellation of registration suffers from legal errors. As per the show cause notice dated 23.03.2017, the authorities believed that the petitioner had discontinued the business during the assessment year 2016-17. If that be so, nothing would justify cancellation of registration with effect from 22.06.2010 There was no material with the authorities to believe that the petitioner's business had stopped since the said date. As per the show cause notice dated 23.03.2017, the authorities believed that the petitioner had discontinued the business during the assessment year 2016-17. If that be so, nothing would justify cancellation of registration with effect from 22.06.2010 There was no material with the authorities to believe that the petitioner's business had stopped since the said date. There was no indication in the notice also that if the petitioner failed to produce the document, it would be presumed that the business had been discontinued since such date. Date of 22.06.2017 for cancellation of registration with back date was thus wholly arbitrarily picked up. Be that as it may, we would allow the authority to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner for proposed cancellation of the registration and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents and be heard by the competent authority, pass a fresh order in accordance with law as may be justified on the basis of materials on record. 11. Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with following directions: I. Order dated 27.06.2017 sealing the premises of the petitioner is set aside. The authorities shall remove the seals forthwith. II. Order dated 27.06.2017 canceling the petitioner's registration is set aside. The authorities are however at liberty to pass fresh orders after following the procedure as observed in preceding para no. 10. 12. Petition is disposed of.