2015 (11) TMI 1428 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

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 show that they fulfilled their obligations under the said provisions of Act . As per the provisions 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.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of cancellation of registration certificate based on allegations of forged lease agreement.
2. Dispute regarding ownership and partnership in the business.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Issue 1: Validity of cancellation of registration certificate based on allegations of forged lease agreement
The petitioner, engaged in the business of silver ornaments, had a dispute with the 2nd respondent over a lease agreement. The 1st respondent issued a notice alleging the lease deed was forged, prompting the cancellation of the registration certificate. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was unjust as the 2nd respondent did not produce the original lease, leading to a lack of evidence. The court noted the need for verification by a handwriting expert and emphasized the importance of due process in such matters.

Issue 2: Dispute regarding ownership and partnership in the business
The 2nd respondent claimed partnership with the petitioner's wife, alleging false representation in obtaining the registration. The petitioner argued that the wife had a 50% right in the land lease. The 2nd respondent's counter included details of a partnership deed and profit-sharing arrangement, contradicting the petitioner's claims. The court acknowledged the conflicting narratives and suggested that the dispute be taken up before the Revisional Authority for resolution.

Issue 3: Compliance with procedural requirements under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006
The court examined the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, emphasizing the authority's power to cancel registration for valid reasons. It noted the petitioner's opportunity to present evidence and be heard but found a lack of proof to support their case. The court upheld the cancellation of the registration certificate based on the non-production of the original lease agreement for verification. It directed the petitioner to seek redress through the Revisional Authority within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue a revision against the cancellation order through the appropriate authority. The judgment highlighted the importance of following procedural requirements and resolving disputes through the designated channels to ensure fair adjudication in matters of registration and business partnerships.