IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 12066 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BRIGITHA MATHAI, PROPRIETRIX, SAM METAL CRUSHER, UZHAVOOR EAST.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENT: --------------------- THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 12066 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application before the respondent, seeking to include two machineries in the certificate of registration. By Ext.P3, a notice was issued by the respondent proposing to reject the application on the premise that the items sought to be included are not items covered under the provisions of section 8 (3)(b) of the CST Act read with Rule 13 of the CST Rules. On receipt of Ext.P3 the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply as evidenced from Ext.P4. The petitioner seeks reliance on a circular issued by the Government of India, as per Ext.P5, in order to contend that the inclusion of the machinery which is used for in the manufacturing process, is not prohibited. 2. However, it is noticed that the matter is now pending decision before the 1st respondent. Contention of the petitioner is that since there is delay in taking a decision the petitioner is put to prejudice, because of the bank loan sanctioned to him could not be remitted and because of the non functioning of the industrial unit due to lack of the above said WP(C) .12066/2011 2 machineries, I am of the view that ends of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the respondent to expedite the matter. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to take a final decision on the basis of Ext.P3 notice, to which the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 reply, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner will be entitled to point out all supporting documents including the circular referred as above. The respondent shall take a decision after considering all aspects of the matter. A decision in this regard shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .12066/2011 3