IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19115 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.VANGUARD LOGISTICS,MAYURA BUILDING, ANAKKATTIL ROAD, THENKARA P.O., VIA, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ANANDAKUMAR P.,MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANNARKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19115/2010-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 16/12/2009. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 29/04/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.1. DTD. 08/06/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 19115 of 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 29th November , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P4 notice issued by the first respondent, asking the petitioner to satisfy the deficit amount of ` 16550/- in respect of the registration sought for and obtained and also the compounding fee of ` 750/-, lest the lapses, if any on the part of the petitioner should culminate in cancellation of the registration without any further notice. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court for admission on 21.06.2010, notice was ordered; simultaneously observing that the payment pursuant to Ext.P4 would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition and directing the respondents to file counter affidavit. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the W.P.(C) No. 19115 of 2010 2 payment has already been effected and as such, the alleged threat contained in Ext. P4 with regard to the probable steps for cancellation of the registration has rather become redundant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the mandate under Section 16 read with Rule 17(18) of the VAT Ac/Rules, that, under the relevant provisions of law, the particulars to be furnished from the part of the assessee, who is seeking for registration, are with respect to the 'expected turn over' and not the 'actual turnover'. When the estimated sales turnover is less than ` 5 lakhs , the assessees like the petitioner are supposed to remit only `.500/-, which in turn has been satisfied by the petitioner. It is also contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was not in a position to ascertain the probable turnover and as such, there is no suppression of material facts. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, with reference to the contents of the counter affidavit, submits that nobody other than the petitioner can be blamed for showing the turn over only as `4 lakhs in the application for registration and the petitioner cannot simply W.P.(C) No. 19115 of 2010 3 plead ignorance with regard to the factual particulars . It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that, though the petitioner specified that he intended to start the business by 21.10.2009, it was actually started only from January, 2010 onwards . The return filed by the petitioner for the month of January,2010 would reveal that there was a turnover of ` 93,66,447/- which is the starting month of the business itself. As per the return filed, the total turnover during the year ended on 31.03.2010 is ` 3,50,63,737/-. This being the position, the petitioner, who is doing the business as a trader in cigarettes and other tobacco products, branded and unbranded food products, branded and unbranded bakery products, cereals and pulses, cosmetics, detergents, simcards, telephone cards and soaps, both retail and wholesale, cannot simply state that the petitioner was not aware of the sales turnover; more so, when the petitioner was very much aware of the available funds/investments proposed to be made by the petitioner, in relation to the volume of the business so to be procured. In the above circumstance, this Court does not find any W.P.(C) No. 19115 of 2010 4 illegality with regard to issuance of Ext. P4 notice by the concerned respondent with regard to the total payment of fees for registration and the amounts under such other heads. Since the said amounts have already been satisfied by the petitioner, the matter does not require any further adjudication. The Writ Petition is closed, making it clear that the registration of the petitioner, having satisfied the liability pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, will stand in tact. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk