VAT tax liability based on Form F containing forged signature of deceased petitioner not tenable

D. Sekar (Deceased) Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) (Madras High Court)

Madras High Court held that VAT tax liability imposed on deceased petitioner and his wife based on Form F containing forged signature of deceased petitioner and his wife is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, petition allowed.

Facts- The petitioner was aged about 86 years at the time of institution of the present writ petition. This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned communication dated 17.07.2018 seeking to recover the arrears of tax due for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the business carried out by the petitioner’s estranged son-in-law.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had entered into a rental agreement dated 22.04.2013 to rent out the demised premises to his son-in-law for the latter’s trading business and for getting VAT registration. However, the property of the petitioner has been shown as if it has been mortgaged to secure the interest of the Commercial Tax Department for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Admittedly, the position of the private property is that the writ petitioner who died during the pendency of the present writ petition and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record.

It is submitted that the petitioner’s daughter and the petitioner’s son-in-law are estranged couples. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Form-F which has been filed along with counter statement by the respondents is based on a forged signature of both the writ petitioner and his wife, namely, Mrs. S. Selvi. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an additional typed set of documents enclosing a complaint given to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District on 23.02.2023.

Conclusion- Held that the signature in Form-F are clear imitation of the signatures of the deceased petitioner and his wife Mrs. S. Selvi. Therefore, neither the petitioner nor the petitioner’s wife can be fastened to tax liability based on the aforesaid documents containing a forged signature of the deceased petitioner and his wife. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. It is left open to the Commercial Tax Department to recover the tax from the petitioner’s estranged son-in-law namely M. Veerasekar for the tax due under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and any other tax liabilities under the provisions of Central Sales Tax, 1956.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

The petitioner was aged about 86 years at the time of institution of the present writ petition. This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned communication dated 17.07.2018 bearing Reference No.Na.Ka.A3/1750/2017 seeking to recover the arrears of tax due for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2016-17 for the business carried out by the petitioner’s estranged son-in-law, namely, Mr. M. Veerasekar.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had entered into a rental agreement dated 22.04.2013 to rent out the demised premises to his son-in-law, namely Mr. M. Veerasekar for the latter’s trading business and for getting VAT registration. However, the property of the petitioner has been shown as if it has been mortgaged to secure the interest of the Commercial Tax Department for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Admittedly, the position of the private property is that the writ petitioner who died during the pendency of the present writ petition and therefore, the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner’s daughter and the petitioner’s son-in-law are estranged couples. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Form-F which has been filed along with counter statement by the respondents is based on a forged signature of both the writ petitioner and his wife, namely, Mrs. S. Selvi. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an additional typed set of documents enclosing a complaint given to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District on 23.02.2023.

4. That apart, the petitioner has also enclosed a copy of General Power of Attorney dated 15.03.1996, wherein, the writ petitioner had signed the aforesaid power of attorney as a witness.

5. It is submitted that the said General Power of Attorney is also registered document and the signature of the petitioner is different from the signature in the document enclosed along with counter filed by the respondents.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner’s wife namely Mrs. S. Selvi signs only in English and not in Tamil. To that effect, a reference was made to a Sale Deed dated 26.06.2018 of the petitioner’s wife Mrs. S. Selvi registered as Document No.2005 of 2018 before the Sub-Registrar, Villupuram.

7. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the amount sought to be recovered is only Rs.1,00,000/-. The case was adjourned on the previous occasion to ascertain whether the family members of the petitioners are willing to pay the amount. The legal heirs of the deceased petitioner were willing to pay the same.

8. After the case was heard on the previous occasion, it was suggested that since the security was only for Rs.1,00,000/-, why not the petitioner or his family members pay the aforesaid amount.

9. That apart, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that having instituted the Criminal proceedings as early as 23.02.2023, the petitioner had not taken any steps to register a private complaint against his estranged son-in-law and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and also perused the documents that were filed on behalf of the deceased petitioner and Form – F which was also enclosed along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

11. Form – F dated 12.04.2013, has been executed in front of Advocate & Notary from Villupuram namely M/s. Lion M. Pandurangan. It bears the notarial seal and signature of the said Notary dated 22.04.2013. The variance in the date of Form-F as 12.04.2013 and the date of the notarial seal and signature as 22.04.2013 indicates that the said documents was not executed in presence of the said Advocate & Notary. The signature of the deceased petitioner and his wife are also in variance with the other documents which have been produced before this Court which are stated to be genuine documents where the deceased petitioner and his wife S. Selvi have affixed their signature. The signature in Power of Attorney dated 15.03.1996 bears the signature of the deceased petitioner as a witness. It is in variance with the signature in Form-F dated 12.04.2013 which has been duly notarized on 22.04.2013. Similarly, the signature of Mrs. S. Selvi in the Sale Deed dated 26.06.2018 different from the signature in the Form-F which have been filed along with the documents.

12. The signature in Form-F are clear imitation of the signatures of the deceased petitioner and his wife Mrs. S. Selvi. Therefore, neither the petitioner nor the petitioner’s wife can be fastened to tax liability based on the aforesaid documents containing a forged signature of the deceased petitioner and his wife.

13. Therefore, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. It is left open to the Commercial Tax Department to recover the tax from the petitioner’s estranged son-in-law namely M. Veerasekar for the tax due under the provisions of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and any other tax liabilities under the provisions of Central Sales Tax, 1956.

14. This Writ Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.