YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the respondent.
(2.) This revision calls in question the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 13 July 2016 as also the order dated 16 March 2016 passed by the first appellate authority and the order dated 31 January 2016 passed by the assessing authority cancelling the registration of the revisionist in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17 (11) of the U.P. VAT Act 2008 ["the Act"].
(3.) From the records, it appears that a show cause notice dated 28 January 2016 was issued to the revisionist calling upon him to explain why its registration under the Act be not cancelled. These proceedings are stated to have been drawn pursuant to a survey conducted of the business premises of the revisionist on 23 September 2015. According to the revisionist, the only information of proceedings which he received was a cryptic SMS alert about drawing up of such proceedings. Shri Agrawal in addition thereto draws the attention of the Court to the various applications which the revisionist had made apprising the respondents of the shifting of its business premises. In his submission, the survey is stated to have been undertaken at premises which had already been changed and that as is evident from the last application made the respondents were apprised and made aware of the change of premises.;