O.N.Sunilkumar vs Commercial Tax Officer on 12 July, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

O.N.Sunilkumar vs Commercial Tax Officer on 12 July, 2011

Bench: S.Siri Jagan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17880 of 2011(H)


1. O.N.SUNILKUMAR,PROPRIETOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)

3. STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :12/07/2011

 O R D E R
                           S. Siri Jagan, J.
             =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                    W.P(C) No. 17880 of 2011
             =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
              Dated this, the 12th day of July, 2011.

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext. P10 order, whereby the petitioner's registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act has been cancelled for non-furnishing of additional security as per the direction to furnish additional security. The petitioner challenges Ext. P10 order inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity for hearing in the matter. According to the petitioner, the petitioner received a notice and the petitioner sought one month's time to file a detailed reply, which has been rejected and orders passed. The petitioner submits that even prior to the passing of orders, the petitioner filed an objection and the order has been pre- dated.

The learned Government Pleader points out that as is revealed from Ext. P10 order itself, the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity. He denies the allegation that the order was pre-dated. According to him, the petitioner did not file any objection within the time stipulated and the order has been passed strictly in accordance with law.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. I am not going into the disputed questions of fact as to whether the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity and whether he has filed objections before the passing of the order etc. Ext. P10 order results in very serious consequences to the petitioner insofar as his source of livelihood itself is affected. In -: 2 :- view of the same, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given another opportunity of being heard in the matter. For that purpose, Ext. P 10 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to re-consider the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In order to avoid further controversy as to whether the petitioner has been issued with notice etc., I direct that the petitioner shall present himself before the 1st respondent on 27.7.2011. The 1st respondent shall hear the petitioner on that day or an adjourned date fixed by the 1st respondent which shall be within two weeks therefrom. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders within two weeks from the date of hearing. Needless to say, till then, the petitioner shall not conduct any business. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts. P3 and P4 appeals as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court