Revetju Cashew Industries vs Assistant Commissioner on 17 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15644 of 2009(A)



1. REVETJU CASHEW INDUSTRIES
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :17/06/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     W.P. (C) No. 15644 of 2009
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging the cancellation of registration of the

petitioner under the KVAT Act, asserting that, no notice whatsoever

was served to the petitioner, before Ext.P2 order of cancellation was

passed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to

clear mandate under Sub Section 9/10 of Section 16 of the Act and

also Sub Rule 18 of Rule 17 of the Rules submits that, the order of

cancellation passed by the respondent without giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner, is not correct or sustainable at all. The learned

Government Pleader, referring to Ext.P2, submits that, notice dated

18.12.07 was already issued to the petitioner before the impugned

order was passed on 17.1.2008. However, on instructions, the learned

Government Pleader further submits that no proof is available with the

office as to the manner of service or as to the receipt of notice. This

being the position, it cannot be said that Ext.P2 order passed by the

respondent, cancelling the registration of the petitioner, is in conformity

with the relevant Rules. It is also to be noted that, there is no proof as

to the service of Ext.P2 order as well. According to the petitioner, no

such order was ever served on him.

WP (C) No. 15644 of 2009
: 2 :

3. In the above circumstances, this Court has no other option, but

to set aside Ext.P2 and it is ordered accordingly. The respondent is

directed to pursue the matter afresh, if so intended, only after serving

proper notice to the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd