2017 (10) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order passed by the first respondent, dated 18.12.2015. The said order was passed on a revision petition filed by the second respondent challenging the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai North Division in R.P.No.69 of 2015, dated 19.11.2015. By the said order, the Joint Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition filed by the second respondent thereby confirming the order dated 01.06.2015, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Peddunaickenpet Assessment Circle, who had cancelled the registration granted to the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, (TNVAT Act), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The Joint Commissioner hold that the second respondent Mr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Writ Petitioner, who was impleaded as the second respondent in W.P.No.16508 of 2015, had a different story to plead stating that he is the lessee of the land and he has been paying the land rent and had put up a superstructure and on 20.04.2012, the Writ Petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the wife of the second respondent herein and subsequently, a partnership deed, dated 07.01.2013, was entered into between the Writ Petitioner and the spouse of the second respondent. That the second respondent has manipulated and created a document by forging the Writ Petitioner's signature and obtained the registration certificate under the TNVAT Act by concealing partnership deed and the registration of the firm. After securing informa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nity to the Writ Petitioner. It is submitted that when the Writ Petitioner had filed a Caveat Application, the first respondent ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner. The first respondent failed to see that the petitioner herein is a proper and necessary party and notices/summons ought to have been served on the petitioner. The first respondent had received the revision petition on 23.11.2015, and within 26 days, has passed final orders. 5. The first respondent has not filed a counter affidavit disputing or denying the allegations made by the petitioner. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit for which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 6. I do not propose to go into the factual controversi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the first respondent is to issue notice to the second respondent,(the revision petitioner) as well as the petitioner herein, who is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. This is so because, the allegation is that the second respondent forged the signature of the petitioner and with the manipulated documents secured registration under the TNVAT Act & CST Act. Thus, failure to issue notice to the petitioner is fatal to the proceedings. When the records are clear that there is no notice to the petitioner, then the natural consequence that has to follow is to set aside the impugned order and this Court has no hesitation in doing so. 9. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan learned Senior Counsel submitted that after the order dated 18.12.2015, th....