Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 301 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTInput tax credit - false/forged VAT invoices issued by a dealer who has not deposited the tax and its registration was cancelled u/s 16(4) (g) of the Act - amount not deposited by the selling dealer - double jeopardy to the State - violation of provisions of section 18(2) of the RVAT Act or not - deletion of penalty u/s 61(2)(a) of the Act - HELD THAT:- A Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. INFRA-TRANSMISSION LTD. VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TANTIA ENTERPRISES [2018 (4) TMI 1800 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] relying upon the decision rendered by the other High Courts and considering views taken by different High Courts held that it will be impossible for the petitioner to prove that the selling dealer has paid tax or not as while making the payment, the invoice including tax paid or not he has to prove the same and the petitioner has already put a summary on record which clearly establish the amount which has been paid to the selling dealer including the purchase amount as well as tax amount. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that Rule 18 if it is accepted, then the respondents will to take undue advantage and cause harassment. In taking this view, this Court relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of ON QUEST MERCHANDISING INDIA PVT. LTD., SUVASINI CHARITABLE TRUST, ARISE INDIA LIMITED, VINAYAK TREXIM, K.R. ANAND, APARICI CERAMICA, ARUN JAIN (HUF) , DAMSON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., SOLVOCHEM, M/S. MEENU TRADING CO., & MAHAN POLYMERS VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. & COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES, DELHI AND ORS. [2017 (10) TMI 1020 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that retrospective cancellation of registration of purchasing dealer does not affect the right of selling dealer for deduction. The issue raised in this petition has already been settled by this Court in more than one decision - no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this petition. Revision petition dismissed.
|