Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

K.R. GEORGE AND CHINNAMMA GEORGE Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR AND OTHERS

2016 (10) TMI 812 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Liability of petitioner in respect of a firm M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation,Railway Station Road, Thrissur - petitioner stated that he was a partner of the said firm and later on denied to have any connection with the firm - Amendment to the affidavit to admit the liability - Held that:- The affidavit even admittedly filed in the year 2014. It is immediately after filing of the affidavit answer to the interrogatories that the present application for amendment has been filed by the petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ced. By virtue of adding of the relief also that is not going to affect the structure of the suit as such as his case as a whole was that he was not liable to pay any amount to the department. - Further, the amendment will only help the court to decide the case in a right manner and that is required for proper adjudication of the case as well. - Amendment allowed subject to the payment of ₹ 5000/- to the Kerala Station Mediation Centre. - O.P.(C).No.368 of 2015 - Dated:- 1-9-2016 - K. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nnot be proceeded against for any liability in respect of a concern by name M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation,Railway Station Road, Thrissur and other consequential reliefs. According to him, the respondents have proceeded against his properties for some amount due from that concern in respect of which he had no connection. The respondents filed Ext.P2 written statement stating that the petitioner is the partner of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Railway Station Road, Thrissur and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing a paragraph stating that he has no connection with M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Mannuthi and also seeking an additional prayer as B that his property cannot be proceeded against on the basis of the revenue recovery notice, RR8/64/90 and in prayer A for declaration that he has no liability to pay any amount as claimed and consequently the valuation portion also sought to be amended. The respondents filed Ext.P5 counter stating that the application is highly belated and it was file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ity in respect of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Railway Station Road, Thrissur but only when interrogatories were served and in answer to the interrogatories the respondents have submitted that the liability is in respect of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Mannuthi and he was a partner of that concern. However he has no connection with either of those concerns and that was the reason why as a clarificatory nature, the present amendment has been sought for and it will not affe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the Sales Tax Department had initiated the proceedings against the petitioner on the allegation that he is a partner of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation and since he had not paid the amount as assessed by the authorities, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and so he had filed the above suit originally for a declaration that his property should not be made liable for the liabilities of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Thrissur. A written statement was also filed stati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ply to the interrogatories stating that the liabilities imposed on the petitioner is in respect of the concern M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Mannuthi and the petitioner is the partner of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Railway Station Road, Thrissur and the other concern is owned by him. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed the amendment application seeking inclusion of a paragraph that he has no connection with either of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Railway .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t to be amended. This was opposed by the respondents. 7. It is true that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. This amendment was introduced by the Amendment Act of 46 of 1999 which was substituted again by Act 22 of 2002 and came into effect from 1.7.2002 with view .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egarding the liability of the petitioner in respect of which concern he is being proceeded with. He filed the suit on the basis that he is being proceeded with by the defendants for the liability of M/s.Industrial Engineering Corporation, Railway Station Road, Thrissur. But in the answer to the interrogatories it is alleged that the respondents have filed affidavit stating that they are now proceeding against him as a partner of M/s. Industrial Engineering Corporation, Mannuthi. That prompted hi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It is immediately after filing of the affidavit answer to the interrogatories that the present application for amendment has been filed by the petitioner when he came to know about the liability in respect of which he has been proceed with. It is true that the affidavit in connection with the interrogatories was submitted on 16.6.2014 but the amendment was filed in December, 2014. It cannot be said that there was undue delay in fling the application for amendment. Further the amendment sought fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is within the knowledge of the respondents and only when it was elicited in connection with the interrogatory served and answer to interrogatory served that the petitioner got knowledge about the same and immediately he filed the application. It cannot be said that it was filed with a view to delay the proceedings. Further it is not going to affect the nature of the suit as such. The question to be considered is whether he is liable to be proceeded against for any amount due from him to the dep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version