4.2 . Learned advocate Mr. Paneri has further contended that regarding position of Mr. S.B. Chaudhary- representative of the petitioner Union, there is no confusion for any suspicion with regard to Mr. Chaudhary in any form. Neither there is any irregularity, nor any fraud is practiced nor any any perjury has committed any time and that has been clarified by filing reply in the pending proceedings at that time, i.e. Special Civil Application No.19368 of 2015 and in the final order, the High Court has not at all passed any structure, nor any direction, nor any adverse order with regard to the conduct of the petitioner Union in any form and therefore, the cancellation which has been effected is unsustainable and not supported by valid reasons. It has further been contended that regarding filing of returns, as required under Section 28 of the Act, the petitioner Union has filed all annual returns as required and have never defaulted . On the contrary, the petitioner had produced the returns from 2006-07 till 2015, vide Exhibits-37, 38, 42, 51 to 6 4.2 2, and as such there is a grave error committed by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that petitioner Union has failed to file the returns as required under Section 28 of the Act. In addition thereto, it has been submitted that notice for cancellation is not indicating this fact. Whereas, the order in question has covered up this issue and therefore, the authority has traveled beyond the scope of the notice itself, which is impermissible in view of series of decisions delivered by this Court. A part from that, learned advocate by drawing attention to Section 31 of the Act has submitted that even if take it for the time being that there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner Union to submit the returns as required, but then in that case, a penal
