LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-206

RIFCO TRADERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On April 15, 2014
Rifco Traders Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s Rifco Traders was initially registered with the respondent no. 2 under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2008") as a proprietorship firm, for dealing in the business of trading of specified goods. Such certificate of registration was issued on 23.5.2012 and was operative with effect from 12.12.2010. On 15.11.2013 the constitution of the proprietorship firm was changed to a partnership firm by inducting two persons as partners, besides the proprietor in whose name the firm was initially registered, but the nature of business was to remain the same. Such partnership deed was registered on 15.11.2013 and was made effective from 25.11.2013.

(2.) The information with regard to change in the constitution of the firm was required to be given under the provisions of the Act of 2008, which was furnished by the petitioner on 27.11.2013 in Form XII of the Act of 2008 through one of its partners, the receipt of which was issued by the respondent on 24.12.2013. Then on 26.12.2013 a notice was issued by the respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bulandshahr to the petitioner to appear on 6.1.2014 by merely stating in the notice that the application of the petitioner did not appear to be as per the provisions of the Act of 2008. The date fixed for appearance was postponed (because of administrative reasons) for 8.1.2014. On the said date the petitioner-firm was represented and an objection was also filed on behalf of the firm. Then an order dated 9.1.2014 was passed by the respondent no.2 under section 17(8) of the Act of 2008 holding that the change in the constitution of the firm from proprietorship to partnership was in contravention of the provisions of section 17(14) Explanation (II) of Act of 2008 and Rule 35 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2008"). Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) We have heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri A.C.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.