IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MAY 2010 / 21ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14668 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. K.S.RAJENDRAN,S/O.LATE SIVARAMAPILLAI, PADICKAL HOUSE,KEDAMANGALAM, N.PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 2. N.MADHUSOODHANA PILLAI,S/O.S.NARAYANA PILLAI, AIKKARAKAATHOTTU HOUSE,ELOOKKARA, MUPPATHADAM P.O,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. K.U.ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.K.M.YOOSUF, KURUPPASSERY HOUSE,THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA - 6, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,MATTACHNERRY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GULATHI INSTITUTE OF FINANCE AND TAXATION, (FORMERLY CENTRE FOR TAXATION STUDIES) PAPPINAMCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (TAXES) SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14668 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging Exts. P4, P4(A) and P4(B). Their bare perusal would reveal that they are in fact, show cause notices issued by the second respondent requiring the petitioners to file objections, if any, as to why their enrollment as Sales Tax Practitioner (STP) should not be cancelled. The petitioners claim that amendment was brought to Section 86 of Kerala Value Added Tax Act only to facilitate persons like the petitioners to enroll as Sales Tax Practitioners. Admittedly pursuant to said amendment the petitioners were enrolled as Sales Tax Practitioners. It is the said STP licences that are sought to be cancelled as per Exts.P4, P4(A) and P4(B). According to the respondents going by rule 97(e) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act Rules, 2005 in order to practice in Sales Tax - one must who have passed the post graduate diploma in taxation awarded by the Centre for taxation studies constituted by the Government of Kerala vide Order No.GO. (MS)46/91/TD dated 19/03/1991. However, according to the W.P.(C).No.14668/2010 : 2 : petitioners by virtue of the amendment made in 86 of KVAT Act they are entitled to enroll as Sales Tax Practitioners. 2. I do not propose to go into the question of entitlement of the petitioners to enroll as Sales Tax Practitioners at this stage. As noticed hereinbefore, the impugned orders are in fact, only show cause notices requiring the petitioners to file objections, if any, against the proposal to cancel their enrollment as Sales Tax Practitioners and offering them personal hearing. That apart, in response to the impugned notices the petitioners have already submitted Exts.P6, P6(A) and P6(B) respectively. They have also requested for personal hearing. Since the petitioners have already submitted replies raising their objections it will only be appropriate for the court to leave the issue for the decision of the 2nd respondent, in accordance with law. 3. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exts.P6, P6(A) and P6(B) reply submitted by the petitioners to Exts.P4, P4(A) and P4(B) respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the second respondent may be directed W.P.(C).No.14668/2010 : 3 : to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The second respondent himself had offered personal hearing to the petitioners, as is obvious from the impugned notices. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the second respondent would afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on Exts.P6, P6(A) and P6(B). A decision in terms of the aforesaid direction shall be taken by the second respondent with notice to the petitioners, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE skj