Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 630 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRefund of excess tax credit - genuineness of credit - purchase of goods from local VAT dealers, and sale of those goods partly in inter-state trade and commerce, and partly as export sales - denial of credit on the ground that the selling dealers, i.e., the dealers from whom the petitioner had purchased the subject goods, had not effected sales of edible oil - Held that:- While the purchasing VAT dealer would not be entitled to claim input tax credit without obtaining a tax invoice from the selling VAT dealer, mere production of a tax invoice would not disable the assessing authority from enquiring whether the sale of goods, referred to in the said tax invoice, is genuine or whether the said tax invoice has been issued by a registered VAT dealer. Section 16 of the Act relates to burden of proof and, under subsection (1) thereof, the burden of proving that any sale or purchase effected by a dealer is eligible for input tax credit shall lie on the dealer. It is for the petitioner, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the assessing authority, to prove that the goods were physical delivered to him by the 6th respondent, and the mode and manner in which they paid the sale price to the 6th respondent; and to satisfy the assessing authority that, notwithstanding failure of the selling VAT dealer to disclose the turnover (representing the sale of goods by them to the petitioner) in their returns, the goods had, in fact, been sold to them. Maintainability of writ petition - Held that:- In the exercise of its jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the assessing authority, or cause a roving enquiry as to whether or not the selling VAT dealer had deliberately suppressed the turnover in their returns after effecting sales to the petitioner herein, or to examine whether or not the petitioner had taken delivery of the subject goods and had paid the sale consideration to the 6th respondent. This Court would also not substitute its views for that of the assessing authority. It is only if the impugned order suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record would this Court interfere. The impugned order does not suffer from any such infirmity. Writ petition fails - Dismissed.
|