IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35760 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M. SAHADEVAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOOCHIKKAL VEEDU, ANAMOOLI, THENKARA POST, MANNARKKAD-II VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU, SRI.M.S.ROY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANNARKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35760 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the application for registration, submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act). On a perusal of Ext.P3 it is evident that the application was rejected on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Palakkad, to the effect that the place of business proposed is notorious for clandestine movement of live chicken by avoiding Commercial Tax Check Post, Anamooly, and that there is possibility of tax evasion by transporting chicken from the State of Tamilnadu to Kerala. 2. It is submitted that, identical orders rejecting registration with respect to the other dealers were subject matter of challenge before this court in various writ petitions. Ext.P4 and P5 judgments are produced in order to show that this court had already taken a view that the reason for rejection mentioned as above is unsustainable. 3. On a perusal of Ext.P4 and P5 judgments it is noticed that this court had observed that, the Commissioner of W.P.(C).35760/10 -2- Commercial Taxes had already issued fresh circular (No:17/2009 dt. 30.11.2009) refixing norms with respect to the grant of registrations. Therefore the rejection of applications placing reliance on a circular which was issued in the year 2006 was held to be not correct and proper. Further it was seen observed that the rejection of the application for registration is not done in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 17(14) and 17(16) of the KVAT Rules. It is noticed that in Ext.P4 and P5 judgments this court had set aside similar orders and the authority concerned were directed to re-consider the matter and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the dealers concerned. I am of the view that similar reliefs can be granted in this writ petition also. 4. Accordingly Ext.P3 order is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in view of the norms prescribed under the circular No.17/09 dt. 30.11.09, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 5. The needful shall be done by the 1st respondent, at the earliest possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb