9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 161 - HC - GSTRejection of petitioner's application seeking for amendment under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to reconstitute the partnership firm - liability of N.Azeem Basha, being partner of Azeem Transport Company - HELD THAT - N.Azeem Basha seems to have retired from the petitioner's partnership business as early as on 18.04.2019 itself. Unless and until the aforementioned documents are considered by the respondent, the respondent cannot come to the conclusion that N.Azeem Basha is also involved in the petitioner's partnership business as well as in the other businesses viz., M/s.Azeem Packaging and M/s.Nawas Garments. Having not considered the documents that too when the petitioner has categorically stated that N.Azeem Basha is no longer involved in the petitioner's partnership business, this Court is of the considered view that by total non application of mind to the aforementioned documents, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent, rejecting the petitioners' application seeking for amendment as required under the TNGST Act. Hence, the impugned order has to be necessarily quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting them the right of personal hearing. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Challenge to rejection of application for amendment under TNGST Act for reconstitution of partnership firm.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the respondent's order rejecting the application for amending the partnership firm under the TNGST Act to reconstitute the partnership by retiring two partners. 2. The rejection was based on the respondent's claim that one of the partners had personal dues amounting to Rs.2.5 Crores in other businesses, which the petitioner disputed by providing documents showing the retirement of the partners on 18.04.2019. 3. The petitioner submitted the partnership reconstitution deed dated 18.04.2019 and the Registrar of Firms' report under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, to support their claim of the partners' retirement, which the respondent allegedly did not consider. 4. In response, the respondent filed a counter affidavit reiterating the dues owed by the partners in their other businesses, emphasizing the financial aspect of the dispute. 5. The Additional Government Pleader for the respondent mentioned steps taken to verify the partners' shareholding in various companies, highlighting the financial obligations of the partners. 6. The Court noted that the documents submitted by the petitioner, including the Registrar of Firms' report and the reconstitution deed, were not adequately considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order. 7. The Court observed that the documents indicated that one of the partners had retired from the partnership business on 18.04.2019, and emphasized the necessity for the respondent to consider these documents before concluding the partner's involvement in the businesses. 8. Concluding that the respondent did not apply proper consideration to the submitted documents and failed to acknowledge the partner's retirement, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing a fair hearing for the petitioner. 9. The Court directed the respondent to pass final orders within eight weeks, ensuring a fair hearing and granting the right of personal hearing to the petitioner. 10. The Court made no costs ruling in this matter, concluding the judgment without imposing any financial burden on either party.
|
