IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2958 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. K.I.KURIAKOSE, 62 YEARS, S/O.K.K.ISSAC MANAGING PARTNER, K.K.ISSAC AND SONS, RUBBER DEALERS, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. M/S.K.K.ISSAC AND SONS RUBBER DEALERS, KOTHAMANGALAM REP. BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, MR.K.I.KURIAKOSE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE PERUMBAVOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R3. K.K. ISSAC, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O. KURUVILA, PARTNER OF K.K. ISSAC & SONS, RUBBER DEALERS, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADDL.R4 K.T. JACOB, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. ISSAC, PARTNER OF K.K. ISSAC & SONS, RUBBER DEALERS, KOTHAMANTALAM. (ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO. 1503/09 DATED 30.01.2009) R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN ADDL.R3 & R4 BY ADV. SHRI RAJU JOSELPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 2958 OF 2009 B -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners challenge Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order passed purportedly under Section 16(10) of the KVAT Act, 2003. 2. I heard Shri V.V. Sidharthan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Raju Joseph, learned counsel appearing on behalf of additional respondents 3 and 4, and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. According to petitioners, the petitioners and additional respondents 3 and 4 are Partners of a Firm which is registered under the KVAT Act. By the impugned order, the registration stands cancelled. According to learned counsel for the additional respondents, this was done at the request of the additional respondents. The principal complaint raised by Shri V.V. Sidharthan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the first petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was passed. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner was not heard. WPC.2958/09 B 2 In such circumstances, I feel that a decision should be taken after hearing the first petitioner also. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed. In view of the urgency expressed in the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: The first petitioner and additional respondents 3 and 4 will be present before the first respondent at 11 AM on 09.02.2009. The first respondent will proceed to afford an opportunity of hearing to them or their authorized representatives, and take a decision within a period of one week from 09.02.2009. No Notice need be issued either to the first petitioner or the additional respondents in this matter. It is open to the first petitioner to file written objections also before the first respondent before 09.02.2009. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge