IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15644 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- REVATHY CASHEW INDUSTRIES, KUNNIRADAM, ANAYADI P.O. SOORNADU NORTH, KOLLAM 690 561 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER R.D. PRAKASH BY ADV. MR. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR MS. K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT: --------------- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15644 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 17th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the cancellation of registration of the petitioner under the KVAT Act, asserting that, no notice whatsoever was served to the petitioner, before Ext.P2 order of cancellation was passed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to clear mandate under Sub Section 9/10 of Section 16 of the Act and also Sub Rule 18 of Rule 17 of the Rules submits that, the order of cancellation passed by the respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is not correct or sustainable at all. The learned Government Pleader, referring to Ext.P2, submits that, notice dated 18.12.07 was already issued to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed on 17.1.2008. However, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader further submits that no proof is available with the office as to the manner of service or as to the receipt of notice. This being the position, it cannot be said that Ext.P2 order passed by the respondent, cancelling the registration of the petitioner, is in conformity with the relevant Rules. It is also to be noted that, there is no proof as to the service of Ext.P2 order as well. According to the petitioner, no such order was ever served on him. WP (C) No. 15644 of 2009 : 2 : 3. In the above circumstances, this Court has no other option, but to set aside Ext.P2 and it is ordered accordingly. The respondent is directed to pursue the matter afresh, if so intended, only after serving proper notice to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd