9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2015 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan,J. For the Petitioner : Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, Sr. Counsel for Mr. M. Azeem For the Respondents : Mr. A. Muthukaruppan, Additional Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Ms.S.Devasena for R2 ORDER This writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in TIN No.33054803116/2014-2015 (CST RC No.169666 dated 07.04.2011) dated 31.12.2014 as without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the petitioner is a dealer in sports goods and musicals and an assessee on the file of the first respondent herein. The petitioner states that the shop bearing Door Nos.10, 10A and 10B, West Tower Street, Madurai is owned by the Madurai Arulmigu Tamil Thirugnana Sambantha Swamigal Aatheenam, otherwise called the Madurai Aatheenam. Originally the petitioner's father-in-law one T.C.Swamy Ayya took lease of the building from the Madurai Aatheenam and was conducting business in the name and style of Sri Swamy Sports at Door No.10; Central Pan House at Door N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat on 05.02.2013, the lessor filed a civil suit in O.S.No.100 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Town against the petitioner and her husband, and prayed for a grant of decree for cancelling the rental agreement dated 05.10.2011 and also for other reliefs and the said suit is pending. In the mean while, the lessor filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.546 of 2014 before this Court for a direction to the first respondent to cancel the registration of the petitioner based on the representations given by them. On 12.09.2014, this Court passed an order in that writ petition, directing the authorities to consider the representations after issuing notice to the lessor and others, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks. Based on the said order, the first respondent herein, issued a show-cause notice dated 28.11.2014 proposing to cancel the Registration Certificate. Along with this notice, the first respondent had also enclosed the letter of the lessor dated 03.10.2012 sent to the first respondent as well as the model form of the lease agreement. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 10.12.2014 objecting to the proposal on man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst respondent took different stands in the show cause notice and the impugned order for cancellation of the Registration Certificate. The petitioner states that at no point of time, she had forged the lease agreement, nor the rental receipt. She further states that the agreement dated 11.04.2011 is only due to the request of the petitioner to the second respondent for the purpose of issuing a registration certificate as earlier. The rental receipt was issued in favour of the petitioner due to the family arrangement between her husband and his family members. 7. Stating the above, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition, seeking the prayer, as already stated supra. 8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, in which the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petitioner's affidavit are denied as utter false and without any material and that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is stated in the counter that while submitting the application for registration, the petitioner had enclosed a copy of the rental agreement dated 01.04.2011 executed by one G.Raja, alleged to be the agent of the lessor / landlord. Further the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner did not give any reason for closing of business by one Boopathy in Door No.10 of the property. It is stated that the petitioner, with an intention to grab the property of the second respondent, fabricated a lease agreement dated 01.04.2011 as if it was executed by employee of Aatheenam. It is further stated that it is the usual procedure followed by the second respondent that he himself will execute the lease agreement in respect of properties of Aatheenam. The second respondent never delegate his power to anyone in the Aatheenam in the administration of Aatheenam properties. It is further stated that the petitioner got registered only by producing fabricated lease deed dated 01.04.2011 and fabricated xerox copy of rental receipt. It is stated that the averments made in Paragraph-6 of the affidavit of the petitioner that the lease agreement in favour of the petitioner was atoned by the lessor-Madurai Aatheenakartha himself by executing a lease agrement jointly in her favour and her husband on 05.10.2011, is false. The original tenant C.Sami Ayya @ Swaminathan, in June 2011, due to his old age and ill health, surrendered his lease with a request to transfer the lease in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any certificate of registration granted by it. Section 39(15) provides that no order under Sub- Section 14 shall be made, unless the dealer concerned has been given an opportunity of being heard. 15. On a writ petition filed by the landlord, in W.P.(MD)No.546 of 2014, this Court by order dated 12.09.2014 directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner therein, with regard to cancellation of Registration Certificate and thereafter pass appropriate orders on merits. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent issued a notice dated 26.11.2014 for filing objections. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed detailed objections on 10.12.2014, 11.12.2014 and 29.12.2014. Considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed. Though Section 39 of the TNVAT Act does not rely upon the rental agreement for issuing Registration Certificate, Sub-Section 14 empowers the officer to cancel the registration for good and sufficient reasons. The rental agreements are not mandatory either for issuing Registration Certificate or cancelling the same. But in the present case, the impugned order came to be passed only on the alarmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
