9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 33431281710. Unfortunately the petitioner's husband died in a road traffic accident on December 1, 2007 leaving behind him surviving, the petitioner, a minor daughter and his parents. After his death, the petitioner started managing the concern and the petitioner's father-in-law filed monthly returns. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for death certificate and legal heirship certificate. After receiving the same, the petitioner sent copies of the same requesting the respondent to incorporate necessary changes in the certificate of registration. But there was no response and the petitioner continued to file the monthly returns. In September 2008, when the petitioner sought clarifications from the respondent about the fat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the legal heirship certificate. Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, makes it clear that when a dealer dies, his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be deemed to be the dealer for the purposes of this Act. Therefore on the death of her husband, the deeming fiction under section 26 came into force and the petitioner should have been deemed as the dealer under section 26 for the purposes of this Act. But unfortunately, the petitioner either on her own or on the advise of the respondent got misguided and obtained a fresh certificate of registration on September 23, 2008. This is perhaps on account of the manner in which section 38(4) is worded. Section 38(4) reads as follows: "Section 38. (4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered dealer was to amend the certificate of registration so that the legal representative gets his name incorporated in the certificate of registration. This procedure would ensure that there is continuity in the registration. Interestingly, section 39(10) makes it clear that the certificate of registration issued under section 39(3) is valid till it is cancelled by the competent authority or on the closure of business. In the case on hand, both contingencies have not happened. The certificate was neither cancelled nor was the business closed. Therefore the respondent cannot treat the period from the date of death of the petitioner's husband till the date of issue of a fresh certificate, as a period in vacuum. It appears that r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
