IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19153 of 2009(L)
1. M/S.SHINE ROTOPACKS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P. (C) No. 19153 of 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuing a
Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P4
(a) and to issue ‘C forms’ . It is highlighted at many a place in the Writ
Petition, as well as in the affidavit filed in response to the statement
filed by the respondent, that the petitioner is very much entitled to
pursue the business and that the issuance of ‘C form’ to a registered
dealer cannot be a matter of grace from the part of the respondents.
The relative rights and liabilities have also been asserted in paragraph
5 of the affidavit dated 23.7.2009 stating that, there cannot be denial to
issue ‘C forms’ doubting the chance to have them misused at the hands
of petitioner, that too, absolutely without any basis and if at all any
misuse is there, it is stated that, the Commercial Tax Officer cannot
transpose himself as a policeman, to regulate the conduct of the
assessee and hence that the petitioner is very much entitled to get it as
a matter of right.
2.The learned Government Pleader, with specific reference to the
contents of the statement filed on behalf of the respondent submits
that, the inspection conducted by the departmental authorities revealed
that, there was quite a lot of incriminating circumstances to doubt the
WP (C) No. 19153 of 2009
: 2 :
transactions being pursued by the petitioner as a ‘shady one’ and that
the enquiry revealed that, the address given by the petitioner was not at
all correct and that the petitioner was acting as a ‘tool’ at the hands of
somebody else behind the curtain. It is also pointed out that, because of
the nature of transaction being pursued by the petitioner and the prayer
sought for, if allowed, will naturally entail loss to the revenue. The
learned Government Pleader further submits with reference to
paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 23.7.2009 filed by the petitioner that
the petitioner has conceded before this Court that they do not have any
business transaction; that they have closed down the business and that
the only attempt was to complete the dealings with the suppliers as well
as with the clients. It is also stated therein that the petitioner would like
to have necessary ‘C forms’ in connection with the period 2007 – ’08,
which shows that the request now made in the present Writ Petition is
for a direction to issue ‘C forms not in connection with the ‘ongoing’
transaction but in connection with transaction effected 1 – 2 years back,
particularly when the returns were filed by the petitioner way back on
31.3.2008.
3. In the above facts and circumstances, there is absolutely no
tenable ground to call for interference. The Writ Petition fails and it is
dismissed accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd