Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2009 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 922 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the application filed by the petitioner pursuant to the tender notice dated June 9, 2008 is a valid application? Whether after the death of the proprietor of proprietorship concern, the registration certificate issued to the proprietorship concern remains in force? Whether under the provisions of the OVAT Act, the legal heir of a deceased proprietor has any right to ask for amendment for registration certificate granted to the deceased proprietor and the same can be amended? Whether opposite party No. 1 is legally justified to cancel the agreement/contract entered into with the petitioner because of nonfulfilment of the tender condition and is justified to enter into a fresh contact with opposite party No. 3? Held that:- The petitioner Sri Koushal Kumar Agarwal is not registered dealer under the OVAT Act having any TIN number and the Commercial Tax Department has not issued any tax clearance certificate to the petitioner, Koushal Kumar Agarwal. This amounts to a fraud. Law is well-settled that fraud vitiates everything. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner in response to the tender call notice is not a valid application. The registering authority itself has cancelled the certificate of registration granted to late Dewaram Agarwal under annexure 11 and rejected the amendment application of the petitioner under annexure 12. Unless these orders are reversed by the competent authority in the hierarchy, the said orders will govern the field. Thus, it can safely be concluded that on the date when the application was filed in response to the tender, call notice, the petitioner had no certificate of registration under the OVAT Act and the tax clearance certificate issued by the STO in the name of M/s. Deepak Trading Co. the proprietorship concern of late Dewaram Agarwal, has no legal force. No valid tax clearance certificate was furnished along with the application for tender. The petitioner was not a registered dealer under the OVAT Act during the relevant time. He has misrepresented himself as a registered dealer under the OVAT Act bearing TIN No. 21101800603 which in fact was allotted to the late father of the petitioner. In that situation, opposite party No. 1 is further justified to enter into a fresh contract with opposite party No. 3 for supply of soya chunks at the rate quoted by the petitioner keeping in view the immediate necessity of MDM for supply of soya chunks to the school-going children. Appeal dismissed.
|