TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for good and sufficient reasons, the authority, granting the certificate of registration, can cancel the registration certificate. According to the said provisions, the impugned order has been passed, on the reason that the original lease agreement was not produced, in order to verify the genuineness of the document in question. Further, all the above disputed facts, raised by the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent, cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition. Since there are various disputes raised between the parties, the same can be agitated by the Petitioner before the Revisional Authority by filing a revision. - Decided against assessee. - WP. No. 16508/2015, MP. No. 1/2015 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.1.2014 as if he got information about the fact that the lease deed given by the Petitioner at the time of getting it registered was a forged one by the 2nd Respondent, who is a landlord of the Petitioner's premises and the lease deed was not a registered one and that based on the appeal filed by the 2nd Respondent before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai-18, an hearing was fixed on 19.1.2015 and the 1st Respondent advised the Petitioner to get a fresh rental agreement to be signed both by the land lord and the tenant in his Chamber. The 1st Respondent has given only 5 days time. On 21.1.2015, the 1st Respondent recorded a statement from the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent. On 25.2.2015, the Petitioner has given a deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice by the 1st Respondent and the reply by the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent called upon the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent to produce the original agreement for verifying the signature by the handwriting expert. The original agreement was given to him while filing the application for registration and the 2nd Respondent, who is legally bound to possess the original agreement, failed to produce the original agreement and hence, the 1st Respondent passed the impugned order, cancelling the registration certificate. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed for the relief as stated above. 3. The 2nd Respondent has filed a counter, contending that the wife of the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent are the partners of the Petitioner firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnership deed and registered the firm in his name as a Proprietor. The 2nd Respondent filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, which passed an order on 13.1.2015. On 20.1.2015, the 1st Respondent issued a notice to him and to the Petitioner and a detailed enquiry was conducted The lease agreement submitted by the Petitioner for obtaining the registration is a forged document and it was not signed by him. On 20.4.2015, it was directed by the Department to produce the originals, failing which action would be initiated and accordingly, he produced the originals available with him and after perusal of all the records only on 1.6.2015, the registration was cancelled. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Petitioner, the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent are the partners of the Petitioner Firm. The Petitioner is doing the business in the property in question. The 2nd Respondent got the said property on rent and the wife of the Petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the 2nd Respondent. It was agreed that 50% of the right in the undivided share was given to the lessee as shown in the schedule. The 1st Respondent issued a notice dated 20.1.2014, proposing to cancel the registration certificate, on the allegation that the lease deed was a forged one. The 1st Respondent advised the Petitioner to get a fresh rental agreement and on 25.2.2015 and thereafter, the Petitioner has given a detailed explanation for each and every allegation. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 3. (14) The authority granting the certificate of registration may, by order, for good and sufficient reasons to cancel, modify or amend any certificate of registration granted by it. (15) No application for registration or for a copy or duplicate of the certificate under this section shall be refused and no order under sub-section (14) shall be made, unless the dealer concerned has been given an opportunity of being heard. 12. The Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of furnishing a representation, written submissions and being heard. However, there is no evidence produced by the Petitioner to show that they fulfilled their obligations under the said provisions of Act . As per the provisions of Section 39 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
