9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise called the Madurai Aatheenam. Originally the petitioner's father-in-law one T.C.Swamy Ayya took lease of the building from the Madurai Aatheenam and was conducting business in the name and style of Sri Swamy Sports at Door No.10; Central Pan House at Door No.10A; and a retail Beeda shop at Door No.10B. He closed the business and the petitioner's husband, S.Boopathi, got registered with the first respondent and he conducted the business from 01.04.2004. The younger brother of the petitioner's husband was conducting pan shop in the other portion. The petitioner further states that her husband closed the business on 31.03.2011 and his Registration Certificate was cancelled by the first respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for registration with the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, based on a lease agrement dated 01.04.2011 executed by the agent of the lessor in favour of the petitioner and her husband. The certificate was issued with effect from 01.04.2011. The said lease agreement was also atoned by the lessor- Madurai Aatheena Kartha himself by executing a lease agreement jointly in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th this notice, the first respondent had also enclosed the letter of the lessor dated 03.10.2012 sent to the first respondent as well as the model form of the lease agreement. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 10.12.2014 objecting to the proposal on many grounds. She also submitted another reply dated 11.12.2014 to the first respondent, bringing to his notice the criminal case in C.C.No.22 of 2013 filed by her husband's brother against her and her husband, alleging that the lease agreement dated 01.04.2011 is a forged one. She also brought to his notice the criminal case filed in C.C.No.254 of 2013 filed by her and her husband against the lessors and others, and requested the first respondent not to cancel her registration certificate, till the matter is decided by the Courts. The lessor did not lodge any complaint against the petitioner stating that the lease agreement dated 01.04.2011 is a forged one. On 29.12.2014, the petitioner sent a representation to the first respondent, to issue summons to the landlord to get the necessary information and also to afford her an opportunity of cross- examination under TNVAT Act and also permit her to file additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the same. It is stated in the counter that while submitting the application for registration, the petitioner had enclosed a copy of the rental agreement dated 01.04.2011 executed by one G.Raja, alleged to be the agent of the lessor / landlord. Further the petitioner also enclosed a copy of the rent receipt No.14529 dated 23.03.2011 issued by one Vedamoorthi, Manager of Aatheenam, by mentioning the name of the tenant as B.Jansi Rani, ie., the petitioner. Only based on the said rental deed and rent receipt, believing it to be genuine, the petitioner's concern was registered with the Department and Registration Certificates were issued. 9. It is further stated in the counter that the second respondent ? Madurai Aatheenam has filed a petition before the Joint Commissioner (CT) stating that the above documents filed by the petitioner are forged, and requesting to cancel her registration based on the forged documents. Only on receiving the same, the petitioner was called for enquiry on 07.03.2012. It is also stated that the contention of the petitioner clearly shows that the rental agreement dated 01.04.2011 filed along with the Registration Certificate is not at all genuine. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self by executing a lease agrement jointly in her favour and her husband on 05.10.2011, is false. The original tenant C.Sami Ayya @ Swaminathan, in June 2011, due to his old age and ill health, surrendered his lease with a request to transfer the lease in favour of his son S.Sundhar. Based on the same, the second respondent has also executed lease agreement, in favour of S.Sundhar in respect of the three shops in D.Nos.10, 10A and 10B, West Tower Street, Madurai-1 on 01.07.2011. While so, the petitioner and her husband, approached the Aatheenam and represented that there is a family arrangement between the petitioner, her husband and the original tenant Sami Iyya @ Swaminathan and requested the Aatheenam to execute lease deed to them in respect of + shares in the disputed property in D.No.10. Believing the same, the Aatheenam has also executed lease agreement in favour of the petitioner and her husband S.Boopathy on 05.10.2011. While so, another son of Sami Iyya @ Swaminathan, to save his leasehold rights, approached the civil Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.943 of 2011. On knowing this fraudulent act of the petitioner, the second respondent sent a complaint to the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
