ABDUL MANAF Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

(2.) Heard the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The main challenge is with regard to Ext. P5 order, whereby registration of the petitioner has been cancelled by the first respondent/Commercial Tax Officer, which according to the petitioner is not in conformity with the statutory requirements, as without issuing proper notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenges the correctness and sustainability of Exts. P7 to P9 assessment orders as well as Exts. P10 to P12 orders imposing penalty in respect of different assessment years.

(3.) During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proper course, as sought to be pursued in terms of Rule 17(19) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules has not been complied with by effecting necessary publication and sending proper communication after cancellation of registration of the petitioner. The said rule reads as follows: