2017 (3) TMI 1955 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Ext.P6 communication issued to the petitioner under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008 - petitioner s contention is that under sub-clause (iv) of Rule 17(8) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules 2005 (KVAT Rules) a partnership firm alone is referred to since by virtue of Section 4 of the LLP Act the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 are made inapplicable - HELD THAT - It is to be noticed that the petitioner is a partnership firm though one of limited liability to the partners and there is no reference to the Indian Partnership Act in the specific provision. It is also to be noticed that many legal entities have been referred to in Rule 17 of the KVAT Rules with the nominal heading of application for registration . The manner in which each of such legal entity is required to apply for registration has also been detailed in the provision. The LLP Act came into force in 2008 after the KVAT Act and Rules were framed. It was not in the contemplation of the rule making authority or the legislature of such a legal entity ie; the limited liability partnership. In such circumstance the petitioner being a partnership; though of limited liability would have to comply with all the necessary incidence of an application to be made by a partnership firm as provided under the KVAT Rules. In such circumstance the petitioner would have to comply with Ext.P6 by way of providing a declaration in form No.2 signed by all the partners with details as shown therein. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The petitioner challenged Ext.P6 communication under the LLP Act, claiming exemption as a limited liability partnership. Court ruled petitioner, though a limited liability partnership, must comply with KVAT Rules for registration. Affidavit in Ext.P6 can be filed by managing partner. Writ petition disposed of.