Redbee Enterprises vs Sales Tax Officer (On Deputation) on 26 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8814 of 2009(V)


1. REDBEE ENTERPRISES,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SALES TAX OFFICER (ON DEPUTATION),
                       ...       Respondent

2. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER OF

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COM.TAXES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAGHUNATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :26/03/2009

 O R D E R
                        K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                 --------------------------------------
                 W.P.C. NO. 8814 OF 2009 V
                 --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 26th March, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Firm. It applied for registration. The

application for registration was rejected vide Ext.P6. Prior to

that, Ext.P4 notice was issued wherein it is stated that the Door

Number which the petitioner intends to be used as Godown, was

formerly used as Godown by one Fantasy Sales Corporation, a

dealer in identical goods like the petitioner, and that unit is

defunct and there are arrears of huge amount. Stating the very

same reasons and noting that the petitioner knows who were the

tenants who carried business earlier at the premises and it is

needless to elaborate any further and finding no strong ground to

deviate from the proposal, the application was rejected vide

Ext.P6.

2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Government Pleader. The ground mentioned in the

impugned order for refusing registration is not one to be found

WPC.8814/09 V 2

either in the Act or the Rules. The fact that the premises

proposed to be used as Godown, was one let out to another

person, cannot be taken as a ground for refusing registration. At

least none is proferred before me. In such circumstances, I feel

that this is a fit case where the Writ Court should interfere, as

the illegality is palpable. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and

there will be a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh

orders on the application in accordance with law within two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.

// True Copy //
PS to Judge