GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1428 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (11) TMI 1428 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - [2016] 88 VST 209 (Mad) - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er 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 - Dated:- 13-10-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. A Thiagarajan, SC for 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

ST 921601. The Petitioner is carrying on the said business in the property 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. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2012, the 2nd Respondent has agreed and given 50% of the undivided 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

applying for registration certificate, the Petitioner submitted a 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 origi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

06 and also in CST 92/601 under the CST Act. The 2nd Respondent is 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 be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

given ₹ 10,000/- per month as his profit share from the firm 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 Infor .....

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 records only on 1.6.2015, the registration was cancelled. 4. The 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reason, the registration certificate can be cancelled and hence, sought 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 submission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 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. Since the original deed was not produced by the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent passed the impugned order, cancelling the registration ce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Suppressing the entire facts, the Petitioner obtained order of interim 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 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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