IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1739 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K. SHIBU, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SOORAJ GLASS & PLYWOODS, CHERUVALLIMUKKU, KIZHUVILAM P.O., ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.C.A.NAVAS RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SALES TAX OFFICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON 19/02/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 1739 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondent to issue delivery notes to the petitioner forthwith after collecting advance tax. 2. Petitioner submits that he is a dealer who has obtained registration in July,2007 and Ext.P1 is the certificate of registration. According to him, he has been doing business in plywood and glasses. Exts.P2 to P14 are the chelan receipts for payment of advance tax during the period from August, 2007. Petitioner also submits that he has remitted substantial amounts towards tax at the checkposts. It is submitted by the petitioner that in compliance with the circular issued by the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, though he has been carrying on business paying tax in advance, respondent is now refusing to issue delivery notes even on payment of advance tax. Ext.P15 is a WPC 1739/08 :2 : request made by the petitioner highlighting his grievances, but then, even that representation was not responded. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The fact that the petitioner is a registered dealer and that he has been carrying on business in plywood and glasses is not seen disputed in the statement. However, it is stated that while filing returns, a statement incorporating the details contained in the purchase bill is a mandatory requirement under Rule 22(3) of the KVAT Rules. According to the respondent, the petitioner filed purchase statement, but the details which are required are not incorporated therein, as a result of which, the persons mentioned therein are unidentifiable. It is also stated that C forms furnished by the petitioner were bogus and the respondent has, as an example, cited the case of M/s.M.S.K.Enterprises. 4. A reading of the statement would thus show that it is on account of the absence of details in the statement regarding the purchase bills, that the respondent is refusing to issue WPC 1739/08 :3 : delivery notes to the petitioner. According to them, they had issued a notice to the petitioner on 4/9/2007 calling upon him to produce the purchase bills for verification and that notice was not responded nor has the petitioner made himself available before the respondent. 5. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. Though the allegations in the statement filed by the respondent are denied by the petitioner, it is contended that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has issued Ext.P16 circular making it mandatory to furnish the address of the selling dealer. Petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes that all future bills will bear the full name and address of the selling dealer. According to the petitioner, the respondent ought to be directed to issue delivery notes to him. 6. From the nature of the contentions raised by the parties, the issue that arises is as to whether the petitioner has furnished details of the selling dealers in the statements filed along with the returns. The documents that are required to be furnished and the information that a dealer has to supply to the WPC 1739/08 :4 : assessing authority are those mentioned in Rule 22 of the KVAT Rules, 2005. Rule 22(3) provides that along with the return, the records mentioned therein shall also be submitted. Ten records are indicated and most of them are statements to be filed by the assessee. 7. Ext.P16 circular only reiterates the requirement of the rules and in so far as this writ petition is concerned, Clause 7 being relevant reads as follows: (vii) Assessing authorities should verify all the returns filed by the plywood/veneer dealers. If the purchase list is filed by such dealers without complete identifiable name and address of the purchaser no Delivery Notes to be issued to such dealer. Plywood/veneer being an industrial product, assessing authorities should take all steps to identify and to register such unregistered dealers. A comparison of Clause 7 extracted above with the specifications contained in Rule 22(3) of the KVAT rules would show that the Commissioner was only reiterating what is provided for in the rules. Therefore, even prior to the issue of Ext.P16, it was the obligation of dealers like the petitioner, to provide complete and identifiable names and address of the purchasers. WPC 1739/08 :5 : 8. In this case, admittedly such details were not provided in the return or the documents attached thereto and the petitioner only offers that he shall comply with this requirement for his future sales. Since on the materials, I conclude that the requirement of furnishing identifiable names and addresses of the purchaser is a requirement of Rule 22(3) of the KVAT Rules, I am satisfied that the petitioner has failed in that respect. If there is such a failure on his side, petitioner cannot demand that the respondent should be directed to issue delivery notes at this stage. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp