2015 (8) TMI 900 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Cancellation of Registration Certificate Forged rent agreement Vide impugned order Registration Certificate granted to petitioner was cancelled, without even considering her objections and request for personal hearing Whether cancellation of registration certificate on grounds that rent agreement was not authenticated one was justified Held that - Section 39(14) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, empowers registering authority to cancel registration for any justifiable reasons Rental agreements was not mandatory either for issuing Registration Certificate or cancelling same But in current case, impugned order came to be passed only on alarming circumstances of presentation of forged documents and related rival claims Against impugned order, there was alternative remedy under Section 54 of TNVAT Act to ventilate grievances of petitioner It was always open to parties to seek appropriate remedies from Civil Court Decided against the petition.

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction and legality of the proceedings by the first respondent.
2. Alleged forgery of lease agreement and rental receipt.
3. Validity of the cancellation of the petitioner's Registration Certificate.
4. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act.
5. Pending civil suits related to the lease agreement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Legality of the Proceedings by the First Respondent:

The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the first respondent, claiming them to be without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the first respondent canceled the Registration Certificate without considering her objections and request for a personal hearing. The court noted that the first respondent issued a show-cause notice and provided the petitioner with opportunities to file objections, which she did on multiple occasions. The court found that the first respondent acted within the scope of Section 39(14) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which empowers the registering authority to cancel the registration for good and sufficient reasons.

2. Alleged Forgery of Lease Agreement and Rental Receipt:

The petitioner was accused of submitting a forged lease agreement dated 01.04.2011 and a fabricated rental receipt to obtain the Registration Certificate. The first respondent and the second respondent (Madurai Aatheenam) provided evidence suggesting that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not genuine. The court acknowledged that the allegations of forgery were serious and that the civil suits regarding the lease agreement were pending. The court emphasized that it could not delve into factual disputes and that these issues should be resolved by the civil court.

3. Validity of the Cancellation of the Petitioner's Registration Certificate:

The first respondent canceled the petitioner's Registration Certificate based on the alleged submission of forged documents. The petitioner argued that the cancellation was unjustified and that the first respondent took different stands in the show-cause notice and the impugned order. The court observed that Section 39(14) of the TNVAT Act allows the authority to cancel the registration for good and sufficient reasons. The court found that the first respondent had sufficient grounds to cancel the registration due to the presentation of forged documents and related rival claims. The court held that the cancellation was valid under the circumstances.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act:

The first respondent argued that the petitioner should have challenged the impugned order before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by way of a revision under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act. The court agreed that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner and that she could have sought relief through the appropriate forum. The court emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it could not go into all aspects of the case, especially when an alternative remedy existed.

5. Pending Civil Suits Related to the Lease Agreement:

The court noted that the lease agreement-related issues were pending before the civil courts in O.S.Nos.1136 of 2012 and 100 of 2013. The court stated that it could not adjudicate on these factual disputes and that the parties should ventilate their grievances before the civil court. The court reiterated that the civil court was the appropriate forum to resolve the disputes regarding the lease agreement.

Conclusion:

The court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act to challenge the cancellation of her Registration Certificate. The court also noted that the civil suits regarding the lease agreement were pending and that the parties should seek appropriate remedies from the civil court. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →