IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22768 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REDBEE ENTERPRISES, TP/2/860A, THRIKKALANGODE P.O., CHERANI, PLYWOOD ROAD, MANJERI 676 123, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, N.USMAN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER (ON DEPUTATION), MANJERI. 2. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER OF COM.TAXES, MANJERI. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COM.TAXES, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.22768 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 order issued by the 1st respondent rejecting application for registration submitted by the petitioner firm, assigning the reason that the enquiry conducted by the authority unearthed that the partners of the firm which applied for registration are close relatives and binamidars of partners which conducted business in the same premises and which an erstwhile firm is in arrears of huge amount of sales tax. 2. Earlier the sales tax registration was denied on the ground that the premises proposed by the applicant was one let out to another person who is in default of huge amount of sales tax. In Ext.P5 Judgment this Court observed that such a ground cannot be taken for refusing registration. The first respondent was then directed to pass fresh orders after considering all objections of the petitioner. In Ext.P9 order the 1st respondent had revealed certain additional facts which were unearthed through enquiry conducted by the Intelligence Wing. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even those materials are not factually sustainable and the grounds based on those materials for rejection of the application for registration is W.P.(C).22768/09-M 2 unsustainable in the eye of law. 3. Heard learned counsel for Government Pleader. Going by Ext.P9 it is noticed that, the reasons for rejection of the registration enumerated therein involved disputed questions of facts which need elaborate consideration by the appropriate fact finding authority. As per Section 55 of the KVAT Act appeal is provided against an order refusing registration. Hence I feel that the petitioner should be relegated to resort to the effective alternate remedy available under the statute. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will file appeal against Ext.P9 within 2 weeks from today. Hence it is directed that if the petitioner files appeal against Ext.P9 before 3rd respondent within 2 weeks from today, the 3rd respondent shall consider and dispose of the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months thereof. 5. It is made clear that the 1st respondent shall furnish copies of materials to the petitioner based on which the application for registration was rejected, on his request, facilitating to contest the appeal on an effective manner. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb