IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33676 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOHAMMED ISMAIL, PROPRIETOR, LULUKKAS WEDDING CENTRE, MANIVEENA COMPLEX, KUMBAZHA ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR, SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 009. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 33676 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Through Ext.P2 order the registration granted to the petitioners under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) was cancelled. In Ext.P2 order it is mentioned that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, intimating the proposal for cancellation, to which the petitioner submitted a reply. The wordings in Ext.P2 is as follows:- “The Department is in receipt of your response dated and is satisfied with the same. You are hereby informed that the above- mentioned registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act,2004 stands cancelled with effect from 01-OCT-10”. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P2 order was issued without any application of mind in a cryptic manner, without considering the objections submitted. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging Ext.P2 order. It was submitted that petitioner is W.P.(C) No. 33676/2010 2 being put to severe prejudice because of cancellation of registration. Hence, the petitioner seeks direction for an early disposal of the appeal. 3. Having considered the fact that registration of the petitioner is remaining cancelled, disposal of the appeal in preference to others is only justifiable. As stated above, the impugned order does not reflect any proper application of mind nor there is any reason mentioned for cancellation of the registration. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, further proceedings of the 1st respondent pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.