N.Surendran vs The Commercial Tax Officer- on 6 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10811 of 2009(V)


1. N.SURENDRAN, MANAGING PARTNER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :06/04/2009

 O R D E R
                         K.M.JOSEPH, J.
        ------------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) No.10811 of 2009-V
           ----------------------------------------------
             Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2009

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 by which the VAT

Registration of the petitioner was cancelled.

2. I heard Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, learned counsel for

the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Learned

counsel for the petitioner would point out that the ground

taken in the impugned order cancelling registration is not one

available under the Rules. He would submit that there is no

basis at all for passing the order. Of course, learned counsel

for the petitioner points out that the order is passed violating

Ext.P3. Ext.P3 judgment is dated 11.3.2009. The impugned

order is dated 19.3.2009. Learned Government Pleader points

out that the judgment is produced before the officer only on

27.3.2009. But, I feel that the petitioner should be relegated

to prefer appeal and the matter should be disposed of at the

earliest. The writ petition is disposed of as follows:

If the petitioner files appeal before the appellate

authority, the appellate authority will dispose of the same at

WPC No.10811/2009 -2-

the earliest and at any rate within two weeks from the date of

filing of the appeal. The interim order will continue till a

decision is taken in the appeal.

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.

MS