Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2012 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 857 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the petitioner is entitled for input-tax rebate under section 10 of the Act and has made out a case for interference with the order passed by the authorities below? Held that:- It is clear from the records that the petitioner-firm has not produced any materials to show that the dealers with whom the petitioner has made transaction have remitted the tax collected from him though the petitioner has been making transaction with the said firms for the last more than three years. In order to gain the input tax rebate, the petitioner has produced the bogus tax invoices. Petitioner-firm has not furnished reliable and proper information about the existence of the six dealers. The whereabouts of the said dealers were 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. Thus revision petitions is answered against the petitioner.
|