IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25230 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.K.SASIDHARAN, KALYANI POULTRY FARM, III 225, C.D.ANAMOOLI, THENKARA (PO), MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SMT.K.HYMAVATHY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - 1, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25230 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P2 order passed by the respondent, whereby the application for registration preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The case of the petitioner is that absolutely no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing Ext.P2, which is in clear violation of Rule 17 (16) of the KVAT Rules and hence under challenge. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Ext.P3 judgment passed by this Court in this regard. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Going by the materials on record, Ext.P2 impugned order does not reveal as to the issuance of any notice of hearing before the proceedings were finalised. As per Section 16(2) of the KVAT Act it is the duty of the registering authority to grant the registration if the application is in order and the particulars furnished in the application are correct. The manner in which W.P.(C) No.25230/2010 2 the proceedings are to be finalised is stipulated under Rule 17 (14) of the KVAT Rules while Rule 17(16) prescribes the circumstances under which an application for registration can be rejected; which clearly stipulates that it can only be after affording an opportunity of being heard. The above vital requirement is not seen satisfied while passing Ext.P2 order by the respondents. 4. Another important aspect to be noted is that, rejection has been made by the respondent vide Ext.P2, referring to the Circular No.10/2006 dated 28.2.2006 However, it is very much obvious from Ext.P3 judgment passed by this Court in almost similar circumstance, that the Commissioner has already issued a 'Revised Circular' bearing No.17/2009 dated 30.11.2009, so as to deal with the situation. As such, rejection of the application placing reliance on the Circular issued in 2006 does not appear to be correct or proper. Since no reference is made to the 'Revised Circular' dated 30.11.2009, which was very much available on the relevant date, it appears that the respondent is not at all aware of the actual position as W.P.(C) No.25230/2010 3 on date. For this reason also, Ext.P2 cannot have any valid existence in the eye of law. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P2 is set aside and the respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which exercise shall be pursued and completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps/17/8