SRIKANT SPICES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), MATTANCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To deal in spices was the petitioner's desire, a legitimate desire. It applied to the sales tax authorities for registration a statutory requirement. Mere application is not sufficient to attract authoritative attention; that is the general experience. The tax authorities wanted a certificate that the partners were residents of Cochin. That certificate was produced. The shop was inspected on 17/7/1987. Even thereafter, there was no progress. On 27/5/1988, the petitioner reminded the authorities about the pendency of the application and a need for immediate registration. Three months passed by. The tax office was unmoved. A reminder was sent on 3/8/1988. The same stalemate continued. Yet another reminder was sent on 5/12/1988. The petitioner then came to this Court for a simple relief of a disposal of his long pending application. That limited relief was given by this Court by the judgment, dtd. 3/2/1989.

(2.) According to the petitioner, an exorbitant rent for an unduly long time without any business being transacted, compelled them to shift to a new place of business. The second inspection, however, came only on 7/4/1989. Obviously nothing was visible in the premises indicated in the original application. That gave a good cause for the taxing officials to reject the application. It was pointed out in the notice sent on 21/4/1989. The petitioner replied soon thereafter on 27/4/1989. The proceedings thereon came under Ext. P-9, dtd. 6/5/1989.

(3.) Various factual aspects are put forward to contend that the refusal of registration is mala fide.