R. Mahadevan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in TIN No. 33054803116/2014 -2015 (CST RC No. 169666 dated 07.04.2011) dated 31.12.2014 as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
(2.) IT is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the petitioner is a dealer in sports goods and musicals and an assessee on the file of the first respondent herein. The petitioner states that the shop bearing Door Nos. 10, 10A and 10B, West Tower Street, Madurai is owned by the Madurai Arulmigu Tamil Thirugnana Sambantha Swamigal Aatheenam, otherwise called the Madurai Aatheenam. Originally the petitioner's father -in -law one T.C. Swamy Ayya took lease of the building from the Madurai Aatheenam and was conducting business in the name and style of Sri Swamy Sports at Door No. 10; Central Pan House at Door No. 10A; and a retail Beeda shop at Door No. 10B. He closed the business and the petitioner's husband, S.Boopathi, got registered with the first respondent and he conducted the business from 01.04.2004. The younger brother of the petitioner's husband was conducting pan shop in the other portion. The petitioner further states that her husband closed the business on 31.03.2011 and his Registration Certificate was cancelled by the first respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for registration with the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, based on a lease agreement dated 01.04.2011 executed by the agent of the lessor in favour of the petitioner and her husband. The certificate was issued with effect from 01.04.2011. The said lease agreement was also atoned by the lessor - Madurai Aatheena Kartha himself by executing a lease agreement jointly in favour of the petitioner and her husband. While so, the first respondent issued a notice to the petitioner dated 05.10.2012 stating that the lessor has sent a letter dated 03.10.2012 requesting for cancellation of registration on the ground that the lease granted had been cancelled by the lessor. The petitioner filed objections dated 12.10.2012. She also requested the first respondent to furnish the copy of the complaint of the lessor as well as the connected documents to submit her reply. She also sent a reminder to the first respondent for the same. While so, another notice dated 20.11.2012 was issued to the petitioner stating that she should contact the lessor to get the documents and submit her reply. The petitioner thereafter, filed a suit in O.S. No. 1136 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town against the lessor for mandatory injunction against the lessor for receiving the monthly rents from the petitioner regularly and the said suit is pending. The petitioner also submitted a reply to the notice dated 03.11.2012 to the first respondent stating that she was not able to contact the lessor and there is no possibility of getting the documents from them. The petitioner requested the first respondent to furnish to her a copy of the cancellation letter to enable her to submit her reply to the notice. Only on 08.12.2012, the lessor sent a notice to the petitioner cancelling the lease agreement dated 05.10.2011. The petitioner further states that on 05.02.2013, the lessor filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 100 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Town against the petitioner and her husband, and prayed for a grant of decree for cancelling the rental agreement dated 05.10.2011 and also for other reliefs and the said suit is pending. In the mean while, the lessor filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 546 of 2014 before this Court for a direction to the first respondent to cancel the registration of the petitioner based on the representations given by them. On 12.09.2014, this Court passed an order in that writ petition, directing the authorities to consider the representations after issuing notice to the lessor and others, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks. Based on the said order, the first respondent herein, issued a show -cause notice dated 28.11.2014 proposing to cancel the Registration Certificate. Along with this notice, the first respondent had also enclosed the letter of the lessor dated 03.10.2012 sent to the first respondent as well as the model form of the lease agreement. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 10.12.2014 objecting to the proposal on many grounds. She also submitted another reply dated 11.12.2014 to the first respondent, bringing to his notice the criminal case in C.C. No. 22 of 2013 filed by her husband's brother against her and her husband, alleging that the lease agreement dated 01.04.2011 is a forged one. She also brought to his notice the criminal case filed in C.C. No. 254 of 2013 filed by her and her husband against the lessors and others, and requested the first respondent not to cancel her registration certificate, till the matter is decided by the Courts. The lessor did not lodge any complaint against the petitioner stating that the lease agreement dated 01.04.2011 is a forged one. On 29.12.2014, the petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent, to issue summons to the landlord to get the necessary information and also to afford her an opportunity of cross -examination under TNVAT Act and also permit her to file additional objections. She also requested for an opportunity of personal hearing.
(3.) IT is further stated by the petitioner that she filed a suit in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 before the District Munsif, Madurai Town, for a declaration declaring that the cancellation notice dated 28.11.2014 is null and void. In these circumstances, on 09.01.2015, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 31.12.2014 from the first respondent, cancelling the Registration Certificate granted to her, without even considering her objections and the request for personal hearing. It is submitted that the respondent has cancelled the certificate on the grounds that the rent agreement dated 01.04.2011 is not an authenticated one; that the xerox copy of the rent receipts submitted by one Vethamuthu, Manager of Aatheenam proved that the rent receipt submitted by the petitioner along with the application for grant of Registration Certificate is a forged one; that the letters sent to the petitioner on three occasions were returned as "unserved" and that the door of the shop was found closed on 17.10.2012.;