The Kerala High Court in James C.C v. Commercial Tax Officer, held that the authorities under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 cannot insist a dealer to submit a copy of the Lease Deed when he is unable to present the same due to differences between the Landlord.
The VAT Department, in the instant case, rejected the petitioners’ application for registration on ground that has not produced a copy of the lease deed, in respect of the leased premises from where he is carrying on his business.
The petitioner took a defense that the original lease deed was obtained by his father more than thirty years ago, and he is continuing in the premises pursuant to the death of his father, and on an agreement with the erstwhile landlord. He further submitted that his relationship with the present landlord is not cordial and there is a title dispute between the legal heirs of the erstwhile landlord with regard to ownership of the premises. In such a circumstance, he contended that the insistence on a production of a copy of the lease deed is not justifiable.
The Single Judge, Justice Jayasankar Nambiar agreed with the above contentions and noted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was already granted a registration for carrying on another business in the same premises.
Further, the Court said that the KVAT authorities cannot insist the petitioner to submit a copy of the lease deed in such a situation.
“Notwithstanding the statutory provisions that insist on a production of a copy of the lease deed as a condition for obtaining registration, in a situation where the applicant for registration is not in a position to produce the lease deed on account of differences with the landlord, and further, the rent control legislation affords the tenant a protection against dispossession in such situations, it may not be reasonable for the authorities under the KVAT Act, to insist on a production of a copy of the lease deed or documents to show the existence of a tenancy, at the time of considering an application for registration under the KVAT Act,” the Court said.
Read the full text of the Judgment below.
