IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6732 of 2011(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REDBEE ENTERPRISES: TP/2/860A: THRIKKALANGODE PO:CHERANI:PLYWOOD ROAD: MANJERI: 676 123: REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER N.USMAN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I: MANJERI - 676 121. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF - COMMERCIAL TAXES: MANJERI - 676 121. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6732 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 appellate order issued by the 3rd respondent. Petitioner inter alia challenges the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent under Ext.P8. 2. The issue pertains to rejection of an application for registration filed under Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) and Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act). At the first instance, the registration was denied as per Ext.P4, on the basis of an allegation that, there was huge arrears with respect to a dealer who was conducting business at the same premises. In challenge raised against Ext.P4, this Court through Ext.P5 judgment, set aside the matter and remanded it for passing fresh orders by the 1st respondent, in accordance with law. Thereafter, Ext.P8 order was issued again rejecting the application, based on an allegation that the petitioner is proposing business as `binami' of two other firms which are in chronic default of huge amount of tax. 2 W.P.(C).No.6732 of 2011 3. It is evident that, Ext.P8 was already challenged before the 3rd respondent in a statutory appeal, which culminated in Ext.P9 order. The findings upon which the rejection was ordered, were nullified by the appellate authority. The 1st respondent was directed to examine and ascertain genuineness of the application afresh, in strict observance to the relevant provisions as well as Circular Nos.10/2006 and 52/2007, which were issued prescribing guidelines in the matter. It is the contention of the petitioner that, even though Ext.P9 order was issued as early as on 18.10.2010, the 1st respondent has not finalised the matter till date. According to the petitioner, even after complying with all the requirements insisted by the 1st respondent, he is not either rejecting or allowing application for registration. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent, on the basis of instructions, submitted that, after remand of the matter through Ext.P9, the 1st respondent had issued notice to the petitioner requiring him to furnish security and the matter is yet to be finalised. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the demand 3 W.P.(C).No.6732 of 2011 of security has already been satisfied prior to the issue of the first order itself. However, since the matter is in seizin of the 1st respondent, it is for him to take a final decision on the application for registration. Since it is evident that the matter was kept delayed for a considerable period, interest of justice demands that a decision need be taken in this regard, at the earliest. 5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to pass final orders on the application of registration submitted by the petitioner, in compliance with the observations contained in Ext.P9, at the earliest possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Final orders in this regard shall be issued at any rate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/