IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2240 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.KOCHIN PLY PRODUCTS, X/377B, JALALIA MASJID BUILDING, MANAKKAPADY, ASHOKAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MAHINKUTTY.K.A BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.P.U.MATHEN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALUVA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 2240 of 2010-D ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The grievance projected by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the application preferred by the petitioner for registration under the KVAT and CST Act has been summarily rejected as per Ext.P5, without giving an opportunity of hearing. 2. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the instructions, submits that no such notice is contemplated or necessary before passing any such orders; however, placing more reliance on the merits brought out in the course of enquiry conducted by the authorities concerned. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on sub Section 11 of Section 16, which is extracted below. S. 16(11) “No application for registration or renewal under this section shall be refused and no order under sub-section (9) or (10) shall be made, unless the dealer concerned has been given an opportunity of being heard.” Further, the position becomes more clear, as to the procedure to be followed, as contemplated under sub Rule 16 of Rule 17, W.P(C) No. 2240 of 2010-D 2 which is also re-produced below. R. 17(16). “If the registering authority finds that, the application is not in order or that the particulars contained in the application are incorrect and incomplete or that the security demanded has not been paid, it shall refuse the application after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard. However, no application shall be refused merely on technical grounds without giving the applicant an opportunity to correct mistakes.” 3. In the above facts and circumstances, the position is crystal-clear that the concerned respondents are not at all justified in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner, without giving an opportunity of hearing. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P5 is set aside. This will not prevent the respondent from passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab P.A to Judge `