IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3085 of 2011(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.ELECON ENGINEERING CO.LTD., 1/801A, PALLACHI BUILDING, PALACHUVADU JN, KAKKANAD, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI.BIJU VARGHESE. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KVAT CIRCLE II, KALAMASSERY - 682022 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 015. BY SRI.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3085 of 2011-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge is against Ext.P6 order through which the registration granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner was registered as a dealer under the provisions of Kerala Value Added Tax Act in October 2009. The allegation upon which the registration was cancelled, as revealed from Ext.P6, is that the assessee has failed in filing returns from April 2010 to June 2010 within the time limit and that the notices sent to the assessee were returned with postal endorsement as “no instructions”. It is further mentioned that on enquiry conducted at the business place of the petitioner it was revealed that there is no functioning. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that they have filed e-returns for the period from April 2010 to October 2010 as evidenced from Ext.P5 series. It is conceded that there was some delay in filing some of the returns. However, it is pointed out that the petitioner has got purchase orders from W.P(C) No.3085 of 2011-I 2 M/s.Cochin Shipyard as evidenced from Ext.P1 and that the registration is to be maintained since they are intending to pursue business with M/s.Cochin Shipyard. It is contended by the petitioner that, before ordering cancellation of the registration the petitioner was not issued with any notice proposing such cancellation and that no opportunity was given to submit explanations/objections. 3. While considering Ext.P6, eventhough it is brought to my notice by the learned Government Pleader that the same is an appealable order, I take note of the fact that no specific notice was issued to the petitioner before effecting cancellation. Considering such situation, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is claiming that they have filed Ext.P5 series returns, I am of the view that the matter requires fresh consideration at the hands of the 1st respondent. It is only just and proper to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit their contentions before the assessing authority and to object the proposal for cancellation of the registration. W.P(C) No.3085 of 2011-I 3 4. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P6. The 1st respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner intimating the proposal for cancellation, for acceptance of which the petitioner will approach the 1st respondent within two weeks from today. The petitioner shall also file objections if any against the proposal within two weeks from the date of receipt of such notice. The 1st respondent shall consider such objection and finalise the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest possible. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab