Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 399 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the Value Added Tax Tribunal was correct in confirming the order of the Adjudicating Authority raising tax, interest and penalty demands against the assessee? Whether such tax, interest and penalty demands could have been raised on the ground that the registrations of the dealers from whom the assessee had made purchases, were cancelled with retrospective effect ignoring the evidence produced by the assessee to contend that there was actual movement of goods? Held that:- It is not in dispute that when the appellant claimed to have purchased the goods from the said two dealers, their registrations were in force. The registrations were cancelled later on abinitio on the ground that they were found indulging in bogus billing activities. The Appellate Commissioner in his detailed order has noted that the said two agencies Shrinathji Industries and Umiya Industries were found to be not only dealing in bogus billing activities, but existed solely for such purpose. They claimed to be the manufacturers but had no manufacturing activity. The spot visits showed no equipments or machinery for such purpose - All in all, the Tax Authorities had concurrently found that the sole activity of the said two agencies was of giving bogus bills of purchases. They were not genuinely dealing in the goods. The case of the appellant that the agencies may be dealing in some bogus billing activities but his purchases from the said dealers were genuine was therefore not believed. These findings were accepted by the Tribunal by giving brief but independent reasons. We do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in this respect - The disentitlement of input tax credit and consequent demand of tax and interest was not on the ground that the registrations of the selling dealers which were valid when the purchases were made, were cancelled later on with retrospective effect. It was on the basis that the purchases made by the appellant from such dealers themselves were found to be nongenuine. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.
|