JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P7 order, whereby the 1st respondent has rejected the petitioner's application for registration under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act on the ground that the petitioner's business establishment is close to Mahe boarder and therefore, there is every likelihood of illegal trading by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Azhiyoor, though close to the boarder of Mahe, is the petitioner's native place and the petitioner cannot be expected to go away from his native place to conduct his business. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs : "(a) Call for the records of the case leading upto Ext. P7 and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the 1st respondent to issue the necessary registration certificate to the petitioner under the KVAT and CST Acts, as expeditiously as possible, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (c) Declare that the petitioner is legally entitled to get necessary registration under the KVAT and CST Acts from the respondents". I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. He opposes the prayers on the ground that since the petitioner's business establishment is very close to the Mahe boarder, there is every likelihood of the petitioner misusing the registration for illegal trading. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Possibility of misuse of a registration is no ground for denying registration itself. Possibility of misuse would be there in respect of any registration granted anywhere in Kerala. That is no ground for rejecting applications for registration itself. It is for preventing misuse of registration that the respondents have been given powers under the Act and Rules. They cannot simply reject the application for registration in order to make their duties to enforce the provisions of the Act and Rules easier. I do not think that the respondents can deny registration to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's business establishment is close to the Mahe boarder. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext. P7 order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, Ext. P7 is quashed. I do not think that the respondents can deny registration to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's business establishment is close to the Mahe boarder. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext. P7 order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, Ext. P7 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for registration in accordance with the above findings, without reference to the fact that the petitioner's business establishment is close to Mahe boarder, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.