IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 187 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34155/2010 Dated 18/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------- M/S.NEW CENTURY ENTERPRISES, V.P.IX/1908, KUTTIPPADAM, ALLAPRA P.O., REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MRS.RASHEEBA ASHRAF. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, SECOND CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR-683542. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT 0F COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.V, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-2. BY G.P. SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011, ALONG WITH WA NO.192 OF 2011 & WA NO.411 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal Nos.187, 192 and 411 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. These Writ Appeals are filed against common judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Officer under the KVAT Act. The appellants' case is that the allegations are not sufficient to justify cancellation of registration. Government Pleader's case is that even though registration is in the name of Sri.C.A.Hassan, the person carrying on business is his son Sri.Ashraf whose separate registration is cancelled. In the first place, what we feel is that if actually there is only one business concern, there is no justification to grant different registrations in the name of different persons. Therefore, what is required to be investigated is whether there is inter-party commercial dealings i.e. purchase and sales or whether there is financial and managerial integrality in respect of business. However, if the father and the son are carrying on business separately by following the procedure, W.A. 187/11 & conn. 2 then there is no justification to cancel the registration. Similarly if there is violation of the statutory provisions and systematic evasion of tax, it is for the officer to consider cancellation of registration. In any case we feel detailed enquiry is required about the production and sale of goods, transports outside State etc., on which the officer is free to conduct enquiry. The complaint of the appellants is that delivery notes are not issued. We dispose of the appeals with direction to the Assessing Officer to verify all the C Forms, delivery notes and other transport documents for the sales made upto March 2011 within a period of ten days from date of receipt of copy of this judgment and if documents produced prove the transactions are genuine and tax due are paid, then there will be direction to the Assessing Officer to issue individual delivery notes transaction wise after details are furnished by the appellants, until final decision is taken pursuant to notice issued. Whatever is the action proposed against any of the appellants, whether it be penalty or proposal to cancel registration, details should be included in the final show cause notices to be issued after verifying records and orders should be issued after giving opportunity to the W.A. 187/11 & conn. 3 appellants. The officer is directed to pass final orders within a period of six weeks from today. The appellants will periodically meet the Assessing Officer and collect the notices so that time is not lost in correspondence. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms