TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim input tax rebate. Further, the petitioner-firm has not furnished reliable and proper information about the existence of the above said six dealers. The whereabouts of the said dealers was also not made known to the Department. Under Section 70 of the Act, the duty is cast upon the petitioner to prove that the said dealers have remitted the said amount to the State Government. Hence it is clear that the petitioner-firm has purchased the jungle wood from the bogus dealers who had TIN number without authority of law. The purchase was effected by the petitioner after the date of de-registration under the KVAT Act, hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim input tax rebate. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty as provided under Section 72(2) of the Act and interest under Section 36 of the Act - against the assessee. - STRP.NO.1/2011 & STRP.NOS.321 TO 347/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-4-2010 - D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND B.MANOHAR ORDER 1.These revision petitions are filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short) against the order dated 8-4-2010 made in STA No.876/2008 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirming the order 7 passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Authority is contrary to law. He contended that during the course of business, the petitioner-firm purchased goods from the registered dealers who had issued tax invoices as per the prescribed procedure under the Act. The petitioner has claimed the benefit of set-off of input tax as envisaged under Section 10 of the Act. However, the Assessing Authority proposed to reassess the turnover of the dealers as per returns filed by the petitioner, under Section 39 of the Act and issued proposition notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the input tax rebate claimed by the petitioner shall not be disallowed. He filed objections to the said notice. Without considering the same, the Assessing Authority reassessed the returns filed by the petitioner, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal. He further contended that Section 47(4) enables the State Government to recover the tax from the dealer who has unauthorisedly collected the tax from the buyer. The Assessing Authority without taking action against those pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been cancelled as on the date of petitioner purchasing the jungle wood from those dealers. Further those dealers have not credited the tax collected from the petitioner. Hence, the question of allowing the input tax rebate to the petitioner does not arise. All the three authorities after considering the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the input tax rebate. She contended that for claiming input tax rebate under Section 10(4) of the Act, the tax invoices, debit note or credit note in relation to the sale shall be issued in accordance with Sections 29 or 30 of the Act and is with the registered dealer taking deduction at the time any return in respect of the sale is furnished, except such tax paid under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. She further contended that the burden of proving payment or assessment of tax or to claim any input tax rebate is on the dealer. Unless the dealer remits the tax collected to the State Government, the petitioner is not entitled for the rebate in the input tax and sought for dismissal of the revision petitions. 9.After considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed on 3-5-2008 confirming the order of the Assessing Authority. The said order was confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 8-4-2010. 12.On verification of the records, the authorities found that as on the date of the purchase made by the petitioner, the said six firms were de-registered, whereabouts of the said firms was also not known and efforts have been made to trace the said six firms. However, the said six dealers are not available. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner-firm has made a transaction with the bogus and fake dealers. On the basis of the invoices issued by the said bogus and fake dealers, the petitioner-firm claims input tax rebate. The transaction between the petitioner-firm and the said six firms clearly disclose that the purchase has been made by cash payment, except one or two payments made through cheques. On the basis of the fake tax invoices, the petitioner-firm availed the input tax rebate. Under Section 10-4 of the Act, no deduction for input tax shall be made unless a tax invoice, debit note or credit note, in relation to a sale has been issued in accordance wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
