IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34552 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S ASIAN GOLD, N.H. THALIPARAMBA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.K. ABDUL NAZAR. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE, THALIPARAMBA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34552 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3. It seeks a direction to accept the application for renewal of registration and to renew the registration and a further direction is sought to allow the petitioner to run the business pending orders on the application for renewal of registration. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a small dealer in gold ornaments and it was granted registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Because of disputes among the Partners, there was no business for the period from February, 2007 to July, 2008. The disputes were settled and the Firm was reconstituted. Thereafter, all Returns upto September, 2008 were filed. Petitioner filed Ext.P1 application for renewal of registration. Petitioner came to be served with Ext.P2 wherein the application for registration was rejected on the ground that the registration itself was WPC.34552/08 L 2 cancelled on 29.4.2008 with effect from 31.3.2008. Petitioner took steps and obtained Ext.P3 which is the order of cancellation. Case is that Ext.P3 is passed without following procedure of law. Counsel for petitioner points out that the notice referred in Ext.P3 might have been despatched during the time when the shop was closed and Ext.P3 is also silent about the mode of service of notice. Reliance is placed on Section 16 (11) and Rule 17(18). Its case is that the reason stated in Ext.P3, namely non-filing of monthly return will not amount to good and sufficient reasons for cancellation of the registration. It is its case that there was no taxable turnover for the period in question and the respondent accepted the nil Returns filed subsequently for the said period. 2. I heard Shri V.K. Shamsudheen, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader submits on instructions that the notices mentioned in Ext.P3 were served by affixture. It is also submitted that a sum of Rs.1,732/= by D.D. was paid for the WPC.34552/08 L 3 year 2007 - 2008. Counsel for petitioner would contend that the notices were actually purported to be served only by affixture. He further submits that having regard to Rule 17(18), setting out the reasons which come under Section 16(10) of the Act, the reason mentioned in Ext.P3 will not be such a reason. Learned Government Pleader, of course, points out that if there is consistent non-filing of Returns and non-payment of tax, it amounts to such a reason. 3. Having regard to the fact that notices were admittedly served only by affixture and also the fact that there is a point to be considered by the Officer, namely whether the reason mentioned in Ext.P3 will constitute good and sufficient reason within the meaning of Section 16(10) of the Act, I feel that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed. Ext.P2 being an order passed on Ext.P1, based on Ext.P3 also is quashed. Petitioner or his representative will appear before the respondent on 3.12.2008 at 11 AM. The Officer will thereafter consider whatever WPC.34552/08 L 4 objections the petitioner has against the cancellation of registration and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of ten days from 3.12.2008. Thereafter, if the Officer drops the proposal to cancel the registration, a decision in accordance with law will be taken on Ext.P1 within a period of one week thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge