M/s. Bharath Poultry Farm vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Antony Dominic, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. Petitioner says that they submitted Exts. P3 and P3(a) applications for registration under the KVAT and CST Act. They also produced necessary documents along with the applications. However, they were issued Ext. P7 notice, calling for their objections against the proposal to reject the applications. To that notice, the petitioner submitted Ext. P8 objection. However, by Ext. P9, the applications made by the petitioner were rejected. It is challenging Ext. P9, this writ petition is filed.

A reading of Ext. P7 shows that the petitioner intended to start a business in live chicken, poultry farm etc. and that the enquiry conducted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Intelligence), Kasaragode revealed that the locality where the petitioner proposes to start the business is at the extreme boarder of Kerala and is just 2.5 kms from Kurudapadavu boarder of the State and Karnataka State. According to the respondent, the geographical position of the area is surrounded by several by-routes to Karnataka State which are used for transporting live chicken without records. Therefore, the respondent apprehends that if registration is granted, that will be misused and that on account of the possibility of smuggling of live chicken, registration has been declined. The aforesaid reasons are also re-iterated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent.

In such circumstances, the only question is whether the possibility of smuggling on account of the geographical location of the area where the business is proposed to be established can be a reason for denial of registration.

Section 15 of the KVAT Act provides for registration of dealers. Section 16(2) provides that if the prescribed authority, after making such enquiries as it may consider necessary, is satisfied that the application is in order and that the particulars furnished therein are correct, it shall register the applicant and issue to him a certificate of registration in the prescribed form. Therefore, the requirement for grant of registration is the satisfaction of the prescribed authority that the application is in order and that the particulars furnished therein are correct. Once these requirements are satisfied, Section 16(2) provides that the prescribed authority shall register the applicant and issue the certificate of registration. The respondent is a statutory authority and its powers are also circumscribed by the provisions of Section 16(2). Therefore, he should grant registration if the conditions prescribed in Section 16(2) are satisfied and can decline registration only if the conditions are not satisfied.

As already stated, the only ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner is that on account of the peculiarities of the location where the petitioner proposes to start business, there is the possibility of smuggling of live chicken. In my view, such a reason is alien to Section 16(2) and at any rate, the possibility that a person might misuse a registration is no reason to decline registration. I cannot sustain Ext. P9. It is set aide. It is, therefore, directed that the respondent will consider whether the application of the petitioner is in order and that particulars furnished are correct and if that be so, registration as sought for by them will be given, subject to the petitioner complying with the other statutory requirements.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.