9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication submitted by the petitioner in response to the tender call notice is not a valid application. The registering authority itself has cancelled the certificate of registration granted to late Dewaram Agarwal under annexure 11 and rejected the amendment application of the petitioner under annexure 12. Unless these orders are reversed by the competent authority in the hierarchy, the said orders will govern the field. Thus, it can safely be concluded that on the date when the application was filed in response to the tender, call notice, the petitioner had no certificate of registration under the OVAT Act and the tax clearance certificate issued by the STO in the name of M/s. Deepak Trading Co. the proprietorship concern of late Dewaram Agarwal, has no legal force. No valid tax clearance certificate was furnished along with the application for tender. The petitioner was not a registered dealer under the OVAT Act during the relevant time. He has misrepresented himself as a registered dealer under the OVAT Act bearing TIN No. 21101800603 which in fact was allotted to the late father of the petitioner. In that situation, opposite party No. 1 is further justified to enter into a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, agency licence issued by RTA, PAN number along with earnest money of Rs. 50,000. Including the petitioner-firm there were as many as thirteen persons who submitted their tenders but out of thirteen, tenders of eleven persons were rejected on the ground of want of documents and other eligibility conditions. As such, only two tenderers, the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 3 remained in the race and their rate was finalized for evaluation. After evaluation, it was found that the rate quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 61.61 per kg. whereas the rate quoted by opposite party No. 3 was Rs. 81 per kg. of soya chunks. The petitioner being found to be the lowest bidder, his offer was accepted and accordingly, the agreement was executed on June 23, 2008 for supply of soya chunks for the year 2008-09. At this stage, opposite party No. 1 issued notice dated June 27, 2008 (annexure 7) stating therein that complaint has been received regarding the VAT clearance certificate, TIN number furnished by the petitioner which stood in the name of Late Dewaram Agarwal as proprietor. In the said notice, the petitioner was asked to submit his show-cause as to why the agreement dated June 23, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the successor of the proprietor continues the business and carries on all legal formalities as required under the provisions of law. Relying on certain judicial pronouncement, the learned counsel submitted that when two views were possible, the court would adopt the interpretation which was in favour of the tax-payer and against the Revenue. According to the learned counsel there appears some anomaly and contradiction between section 31(d) of the OVAT Act and rule 30(1) of the OVAT Rules. It is submitted that a combined reading of section 31(d) and section 32 of the OVAT Act leads to an unambiguous conclusion that neither the successor of a proprietorship business needs to apply for fresh registration nor the certificate of registration is needed to be cancelled. He submitted that the petitioner made a valid application for amendment of registration certificate in form VAT-108 and pursuant to sub-section (4) of section 32, it has been clarified that the amendment applied for has been granted and certificate of registration was accordingly amended. Concluding his argument he submitted that opposite party No. 1, Collector is not justified to terminate his concluded agreement and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed with opposite party No. 3 for supply of chunks. The said agreement was valid for one year from the date of execution of the agreement. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 3, Kaliram Agarwal submits that opposite party No. 1, Collector has terminated the agreement with the petitioner consequent upon filing of a void clearance certificate along with the tender documents. Since the petitioner's tender documents were in violation of the terms and conditions of the tender notice, opposite party No. 3 was awarded with the supply order at the same price as quoted by the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted a void VAT clearance certificate by indicating the TIN number of a nonexistent business concern. M/s. Deepak Trading Co. which was a proprietorship concern of late Dewaram Agarwal having TIN No. 21101800603 and after the death of the sole proprietor the certificate of registration is cancelled automatically and the TIN number allotted to the said proprietorship concern became infructuous and also the clearance certificate issued in form VAT-612 by the STO was null and void. The TIN number indicated in the VAT clearance certificate was allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration certificate bearing TIN No. 21101800603 was granted to Dewaram Agarwal, proprietor of M/s. Deepak Trading Company. The said Dewaram Agarwal expired on October 26, 2007 and accordingly the TIN number granted to Dewaram Agarwal ceased and/or became inoperative from that date. As the certificate of registration cannot be transferred under the provisions of the OVAT Act and the Rules made thereunder, filing of an application for amendment of registration certificate in form VAT-108 by the petitioner who is not a registered dealer under the OVAT Act is of no consequence. Section 32 of the OVAT Act starts with the phrase, if any dealer registered under the Act and, therefore, Shri Koushal Kumar Agrawal being not a registered dealer cannot make any application for registration. The contention of the petitioner that according to sub-section (4) of section 32 of the aforesaid Act, the amendment as to change of ownership is deemed to have been amended as the registering authority failed to amend the registration certificate within one month from the date of application, has no application to this case. That is the reason why the registering authority has rejected the amendment appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al. This amounts to a fraud. Law is well-settled that fraud vitiates everything. Therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner in response to the tender call notice is not a valid application. So far as the second question is concerned, there is no dispute that in case of a proprietorship concern, the registration certificate is issued to the proprietor. In the present case, one late Dewaram Agarwal was the proprietor of M/s. Deepak Trading Co., who died on October 26, 2007. On the death of the said Dewaram Agarwal, there was a civil death of the registration certificate granted to late Dewaram Agarwal as the proprietor of M/s. Deepak Trading Co. and the same cannot be transferred in the name of any of the legal heirs of late Dewaram Agarwal. Sub-rule (3) of rule 30 of the OVAT Rules provides that: In the event of death of a dealer being the proprietor of the business registered under the Act, the legal heir shall, within fourteen days from the date of death, inform in writing, the registering authority of the circle or range, as the case may be, the date of his death and produce before such authority such evidence, as may be required, and the registering authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
