IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35760 of 2010(T)
1. M. SAHADEVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :30/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35760 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
———————-
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order issued by the
1st respondent rejecting the application for registration,
submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax
Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is evident that
the application was rejected on the basis of enquiry report
submitted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax, Palakkad, to the effect that the place of
business proposed is notorious for clandestine movement of live
chicken by avoiding Commercial Tax Check Post, Anamooly,
and that there is possibility of tax evasion by transporting
chicken from the State of Tamilnadu to Kerala.
2. It is submitted that, identical orders rejecting
registration with respect to the other dealers were subject
matter of challenge before this court in various writ petitions.
Ext.P4 and P5 judgments are produced in order to show that
this court had already taken a view that the reason for rejection
mentioned as above is unsustainable.
3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 and P5 judgments it is noticed
that this court had observed that, the Commissioner of
W.P.(C).35760/10 -2-
Commercial Taxes had already issued fresh circular (No:17/2009
dt. 30.11.2009) refixing norms with respect to the grant of
registrations. Therefore the rejection of applications placing
reliance on a circular which was issued in the year 2006 was
held to be not correct and proper. Further it was seen observed
that the rejection of the application for registration is not done in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 17(14)
and 17(16) of the KVAT Rules. It is noticed that in Ext.P4 and P5
judgments this court had set aside similar orders and the
authority concerned were directed to re-consider the matter and
to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the dealers concerned. I am of the
view that similar reliefs can be granted in this writ petition also.
4. Accordingly Ext.P3 order is hereby quashed. The 1st
respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in view of the
norms prescribed under the circular No.17/09 dt. 30.11.09, after
affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
5. The needful shall be done by the 1st respondent, at
the earliest possible, at any rate within one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb