Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2017 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1170 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of assessment order - Wrong claim of input tax credit - Discrepancy in Form WW - Defective certificates issued by buyers of capital goods - Service income - Miscellaneous income - Held that: - as regards, wrong claim of input tax credit is concerned, the petitioner made a specific request for furnishing of statement on monthly basis and also invoice-wise break-up in respect of the suppliers concerned. Therefore, the finding that the petitioner could have sought for details is incorrect, as they have already sought for the details. So far as Form WW, which was produced by the petitioner appended along with the audited financial statement, is concerned, the respondent termed the sale as a suppression on the part of the petitioner and confirmed the proposal. Such a finding is incorrect because the respondent should examine the correctness of the intra unit transfer and if it is really an intra unit transfer, then the question of sale does not arise. Therefore, the observation with regard to Form WW and the audited statement produced by the petitioner is incorrect. With regard to sale of capital goods, the petitioner produced certificates from the buyer. According to the respondent, the certificate is defective, as the commodity code has not been properly mentioned. If there is a defect in the certificate, nothing prevented the respondent from returning the certificate for rectifying the errors, if any. This alone would be a reasonable procedure to be adopted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, foreclosing the petitioner's right without returning the alleged defective certificate is incorrect. With regard to service income, the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has attached the required audited statement in respect of the sale of service - If, according to the respondent, the documents produced by the petitioner are insufficient, then an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to produce additional documents or explain whatever documents have been placed. Hence, the respondent should not have confirmed the proposal on the said head for the reasons given by him in the impugned assessment orders. With regard to miscellaneous income, the petitioner provided break-up details of miscellaneous income stating that they are from DGFT drawback claim provision and creditors write off and with regard to sale of scrap, they had indicated the amount and shown that they had already paid tax at 5%. However, the respondent confirmed the proposal under the said head by stating that the details furnished by the petitioner are also taxable categories and hence, confirmed the proposal. It is not clear as to how the respondent has brought the drawback claim within the taxable category. This finding is devoid of reasons. The findings rendered by the respondent on the above five issues are incorrect and not tenable - this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned assessment orders on the above indicated five issues and remit the matters back to the respondent for a fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
|