2017 (3) TMI 1955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... heen JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that Ext.P6 communication has been issued to the petitioner under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (for brevity 'the LLP Act'), which according to the petitioner, they are not obliged to comply with. 2. The petitioner's contention is that under sub-clause (iv) of Rule 17(8) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules 2005 (f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hip firm, though one of limited liability to the partners and there is no reference to the Indian Partnership Act in the specific provision as extracted herein above. 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 r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the same could be filed by a proprietor/managing partner / managing director/director or manager. Hence the affidavit as directed in Ext. P6 could be filed by the managing partner, who as per the Partnership Act is the Designated Partner and the details of PAN card and bank accounts would be available in the declaration to be filed. The petitioner would be entitled to comply with the aforesaid .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X