IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31134 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K. SANTHOSH, NARMADA FARMS, XII/490, PUTHURPADAM, NENMENI.P.O, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.31146/08 G, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NOS.31134/08F & 31146/08G -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd November, 2008 JUDGMENT Since common question arises in these two Writ Petitions, they are disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. Petitioners challenge Ext.P2 in both the cases. It is an order passed by the first respondent, Assistant Commissioner, placing reliance on the Report of the second respondent and rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners seeking registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. One of the complaints raised by the petitioners is that they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned orders are passed. They rely on Section 16 of the KVAT Act. There is no dispute that the petitioners were not heard. Of course, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the reliance placed on the Report of the second WPC.31134 & 31146/08 2 respondent, Deputy Commissioner and the appellate authority is also the Deputy Commissioner. Learned Government Pleader would point out that the reliance placed on the Report of the second respondent who is the Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) is in accordance with Circular and the Appellate Authority is another Deputy Commissioner. The fact that they may be of the same rank, I think, is insufficient for me to consider granting the relief sought for in these cases straight away from this Court. Of course, learned counsel for petitioners submits that going by Circular Nos.10/06 and 4/07, all that the respondents can do is to require the furnishing of higher security which the petitioners are also prepared to do. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, points out that the Circulars mandate that if a business is done benami, it is open to the Authority to reject the applications. Whatever that be, I feel, in the facts of these cases, in so far as the petitioners were not heard before the impugned orders are passed rejecting their applications for registration, the impugned orders are infirm and WPC.31134 & 31146/08 3 are to be invalidated. Accordingly, Ext.P2 in both cases are quashed. The first respondent will consider the matter afresh and take a decision in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge