IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30789 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.VINOD, CHANDNI ENTERPRISES, SAKTHI COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHITTUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPT. GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K. VINOD CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.30789 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer engaged in the trade of live chicken. Grievance voiced in this writ petition is about non-revalidation of delivery notes submitted before the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, the delivery notes issued bearing Sl:Nos:CTVAB 1272151 to 1272200 were valid only upto 25.10.09. Since those delivery notes could not be used unless revalidated, the petitioner produced the same for re- validation before the 1st respondent, on 24.10.09. Ext.P1 local delivery book reveals the above fact. It is pointed out that in the local delivery book itself the 1st respondent made an endorsement as “Delivery note book No:CTVAB 1272151 to 1272200 retained here because the dealer's arrears pending with Revenue Recovery”. 2. Relying on various decisions, the petitioner contended that, arrears in payment of sales tax is not a valid reason to deny forms of delivery notes to a registered dealer. Learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) on instructions submitted that, 5 numbers of used delivery notes issued prior to issuance of W.P.(C).30789/09-P 2 delivery notes which are now submitted for revalidation, has not been returned by the petitioner to the 1st respondent. Therefore the reason for denial of revalidation is not merely the arrears alone. However, considering the exigencies of the business activities, a registered dealer cannot be denied of required number of delivery notes, unless there is valid reasons existing. In the case at hand the 1st respondent had not intimated the dealer about any reasons for which the delivery note is denied. 3. Therefore I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a decision at the earliest regarding the request made by the petitioner for revalidation of the delivery notes. 4. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the request of the petitioner for revalidation of the delivery notes, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb