Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

B.S. Silver Emporium Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) , NV Kamalesh Kumar

2015 (11) TMI 1428 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Cancellation of registration - proof of address - petitioner contended that, there is no mandatory provision in the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 that the Petitioner has to produce no objection certificate from the landlord. - validity of Lease agreement produced - failed to produce the original agreement - Held that:- Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of furnishing a representation, written submissions and being heard. However, there is no evidence produced by the Petitioner to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 - Dated:- 13-10-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. A Thiagarajan, SC for Mr. S Ramesh Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. Manoharan Sundaram, AGP- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roperty belonged to a Mutt and the 2nd Respondent got the property on land rent. The wife of the Petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the 2nd Respondent and as per the said agreement, the wife of the Petitioner had to pay a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs towards the cost of the construction and payments were made in terms of the agreement. The construction was completed and the superstructure was leased out to the Petitioner. It was agreed that 50% of the right in the undivided share was given .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

andlord 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

share in the land to the Petitioner's wife. In the lease agreement dated 16.3.2013, the 2nd Respondent put the signature in full. The 1st Respondent did not conduct any enquiry nor did not enquire the witness to the document. Since the 2nd Respondent did not produce the original lease to the 1st Respondent and the 1st Respondent failed to enquire the witnesses, no conclusion would be arrived about the allegation made in the notice. c. On 29.4.2015, the Petitioner has given a representation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

copy of the original agreement with the 1st Respondent. After 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, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the lessee of the land and has been paying the land rent and the 2nd Respondent has put up the superstructure. The wife of the Petitioner does not have 50% of the right in the lease. Allegation with regard to signature is false. Originally, on 20.4.2012, the 2nd Respondent entered into a lease agreement with the wife of the Petitioner and subsequently, the same was invoked and a partnership deed dated 7.1.2013 was entered into between the 2nd Respondent and her. As per clause 6 of the partnershi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by her, who has stopped to pay the said profit ratio after these litigations. It is mandatory to produce no objection certificate from the landlord for obtaining TIN and the Petitioner has manipulated and created a false deed by forging his signature and obtained TIN and the Petitioner concealed the said partnership 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that 1st Respondent erred in law in cancelling the registration certificate without examining the real owner and also without enquiring the witnesses to the agreement and that as per the lease agreement, the wife of the Petitioner had 50% of the land right and hence, the possession of the Petitioner is legal when there is no mandatory provision under the Act to produce no objection certificate from the landlord and that the impugned order has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ught for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. The learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent contended that the lease agreement submitted by the Petitioner for obtaining the registration is a forged document and it was not signed by him and he produced the originals available with him and after perusal of all the records only, the impugned order has passed, cancelling the registration. 7. This court heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. Since the original deed was not produced by the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent passed the impugned order, cancelling the registration certificate, without conducting any enquiry and examining the witness .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terim stay on 1.6.2015 and the 2nd Respondent preferred a complaint before the police, regarding the manipulation of his signature in the alleged forged lease agreement and the 1st Respondent conducted a detailed enquiry and only after giving opportunity to the parties concerned, the impugned order was passed. 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 39 (13), 14) and (15) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as under:- "39. Procedure for registration .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version