B T MAMMOO Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Government Pleader also.

(2.) THE petitioner is a dealer in hill produce, a commodity taxable at the last purchase point under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. He is aggrieved by exhibit P10 final order of the respondent cancelling his registration certificate. Exhibit P10 was received by the petitioner by registered post only on November 2, 1996 as borne out by exhibit P11, true copy of the postal cover. THE grievance of the petitioner as highlighted in this original petition is that exhibit P10 has been passed without taking into account exhibit P7 letter and exhibit P8 objection which, according to the petitioner, were available in the records of the respondent before he communicated exhibit P10 order to the petitioner. THE petitioner has produced exhibit P9 postal acknowledgment which would show that the objection was received by the respondent on October 22, 1996 which fact is conceded in the statement filed before this Court by the respondent. If, as a matter of fact, the objection was received by the respondent before communication of exhibit P10, the respondent was under legal obligation to advert to the objection and then pass orders. Evidently that has not been done and exhibit P10 has been passed without adverting to exhibits P7 and P8. THE question then is when exhibit P10 can be treated as one passed in accordance with law. THE mere passing of the order is not sufficient. It must be duly communicated to the assessee. Going by the exhibits referred to above, there is nothing to show that exhibit P10 was put beyond the control of the respondent or despatched to the petitioner on or before October 22, 1996, the date of receipt of objection by the respondent. In cases where orders of adjudication necessitate communication, it is only on such communication, the orders become operative. Merely because the order is signed and kept in the office without communicating the same to the party, the order will not become effective. THE decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer [1962] 1 SCR 676 referred to in Bhaskaran v. Additional Income-tax Officer [1963] 47 ITR 334 (Ker) makes the position clear. Even otherwise, it is trite law that such orders become operative only on service on the party affected. In the aforesaid view, exhibit P10 cannot be legally sustained which is accordingly quashed and there will be a direction to the respondent to pass fresh orders after adverting to exhibits P7 and P8 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that in the event of the failure on the part of the petitioner to extend sincere co-operation to the respondent, the latter will be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the basis of available records.