2016 (10) TMI 812 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

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 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 for is only clarificatory in nature and it cannot be said that new cause of action has been arisen for that purpose or new case has been introduced. 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.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing application for amendment under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a suit seeking a declaration that he cannot be held liable for any amount due from a specific concern. The respondents alleged that the petitioner was a partner of the concern and liable to pay tax, leading to revenue recovery proceedings. The petitioner sought an amendment to clarify his lack of connection with the concerns in question. The court below dismissed the amendment application as belated, after evidence was taken.

The petitioner argued that the amendment was clarificatory and aimed at avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, not altering the suit's nature. The respondents contended that the amendment was belated and an attempt to evade liability. The court noted that the amendment was filed after interrogatories revealed the petitioner's lack of connection with the concerns. The court considered the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, allowing amendments after trial commencement if due diligence was shown.

The court found that the amendment sought was clarificatory and did not introduce a new cause of action. The petitioner promptly filed for amendment upon learning of the liability basis. The court held that the amendment would aid in proper adjudication and did not unduly delay proceedings. The court set aside the lower court's dismissal, allowing the amendment on payment of costs to the Mediation Centre. The court directed expedited disposal of the suit within three months.

In conclusion, the court allowed the amendment application, emphasizing the importance of proper adjudication and expeditious case resolution. The petitioner was directed to pay costs for the amendment, with the suit to proceed accordingly.