IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31211 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.B.SATHEESH, PROPRIETOR, M.S.TRADERS, KAMBALAKKAD, WYNAD DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E.K.MADHUMOHANAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA, O/O.THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, MUTHANGA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, MUTHANGA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM.J -------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31211 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th November,2009 JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8 order by which registration of the petitioner was cancelled, and against Ext.P9 notice through which penalty was proposed to be imposed, alleging dishonour of cheques submitted towards payment of advance tax. With respect to Ext.P9 notice the petitioner can very well submit explanations and if such explanations is offered, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 2. The cancellation of registration as evidenced by Ext.P8 is issued under section 16(10) of the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT), interalia alleging dishonour of cheques, submitted by the petitioner towards payment of advance tax. In identical situation similar orders issued with respect to other dealers were challenged before this court in a batch of writ petition, and through judgment dated 27/10/2009 in W.P.(C) No.29206/2009 and other connected cases this court has set aside such orders W.P.(C).No.31211 of 2009 2 without prejudice to the authority in taking fresh proceedings. Since identical situation and grounds is prevailing in this case also I am inclined to quash Ext.P8 for the reasons elaborately discussed in the judgment cited above. 3. Accordingly Ext.P8 is quashed without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in initiating fresh proceedings as directed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29206/2009. 4. Registry will attach judgment in W.P.(C).No. 29206/2009 and connected cases, as part of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE ssn