Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 6011 OF 2017 PETITIONER:
SHARAFUDHEEN.P AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE ABDULLA, MANAGING PARTNER, ‘SILKY HALL’, DOOR NO. 20/517, P, Q, IRUR, MUNICIPALITY, O.B. ROAD, POST TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL SMT.A.P.RUFAIJA RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TIRUR, POST TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 101.
3 P.T. SAINUDHEEN S/O. MOIDEEN, PARAMBITHAZHATH HOUSE, POST MEENADATHUR, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SMT.UMMUL FIDA SRI. VENUGOPAL V (GP) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.6011/2017 -:2:- J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the Managing Partner of a partnership firm namely, “Silky Mall” at Tirur in Malappuram District. It is the case of the petitioner that the firm was originally constituted between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent as its only partners. It is submitted that later one P.V.Zakariya was also admitted as a partner of the firm. It is stated that as per Ext.P1 partnership deed, the 3rd respondent is the Managing Partner. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Clause 8(i) of the Partnership deed, in the absence of the Managing Partner, the petitioner is entitled to represent the firm on behalf of the Managing Partner. It is stated that there arose disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and the petitioner along with the aforesaid P.V.Zakariya bought out the interest of the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has, however, not executed any reconstituted partnership deed, as a result of which, the petitioner has
W.P.(C) No.6011/2017 -:3:- been unable to obtain GST registration.
2.
The learned Government Pleader submits that even going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the 3rd respondent is the Managing Partner of the firm and without his concurrence and consent, the GST registration cannot be granted to the firm. It is submitted that even according to the petitioner, there are disputes between the petitioner and 3rd respondent and unless there is an order from a competent court and unless the partnership is re-constituted and the petitioner is permitted to continue with the partnership business, the petitioner cannot be allowed to unilaterally obtain GST registration.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of the relief sought for in the writ petition. If there are any disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, it is for the petitioner to seek legal remedies in a manner known to law. As things stand, even on the petitioner’s own
W.P.(C) No.6011/2017 -:4:- showing, the 3rd respondent continues to be the Managing Partner of the firm. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued directing the authorities to approve the GST registration application by the petitioner to the exclusion of the 3rd respondent and without insisting for the concurrence of the 3rd respondent.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- GOPINATH P.
ats
JUDGE
W.P.(C) No.6011/2017 -:5:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6011/2017 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTED PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 14/08/2013 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL LICENCE OF THE FIRM DATED 14/05/2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/06/2013 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05/06/2014 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 30/01/2017