9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebate. Accordingly, a proposition notice was issued under Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 3.The petitioner filed his objections to the said proposition notice and contended that he has purchased the jungle wood and plywoods from the registered dealer who are having TIN numbers. Further they have issued tax invoices. Hence, the petitioner is 5 entitled to claim input tax rebate on the said invoices and it is not his concern, whether the said dealer has remitted the amount to the Government or not. It is the responsibility of the Government to collect the said amount from the said dealers and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same. The Assessing Authority after considering the objections filed by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAKA and contended that when the State Government at the time of granting registration has taken care to get full information of the dealers, it is for the Government to collect tax from such a registered dealer. Hence it is not open to the State Government to take it out on the petitioner dealer because of its inability to collect the tax. He further contended that it is not the duty of the petitioner-firm to verify the registration certificate of the dealer before purchasing the goods. Once the dealer issued the tax invoices, after the due registration, it is for the authorities to take action against those unregistered dealers and the petitioner cannot be penalised by disallowing the input tax rebate and sought for setting aside the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in these revision petitions is as to whether 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? 10.The records disclose that the revision petitioner is the registered dealer engaged in the manufacture of wooden packing materials and plywood goods. He has purchased the goods from the unregistered local dealers and availed input tax rebate. He has submitted the monthly returns for the period from 1-4-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. 11.Accordingly, the petitioner-firm is not entitled for the input tax rebate, and hence, disallowed the input tax rebate and issued demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax with fine and interest of Rs.2,02,873/-. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-02-2008 passed by the Assessing Authority, the petitioner 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced 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. 15.Further, M/s.New Timber Traders, M/s.Adnan Timber Mart, M/s.Mahadevan Trading Copmpany have been de-registered w.e.f. 1-4-2005. M/s.Swastik Plywoods has been de-registered w.e.f. 1-1-2006 and M/s.Rajdhani Glass and Plywood has been de-registered w.e.f. 5-4-2006. Insofar as M/s.Rajashree Distributors, they have not been registered under the Act. The transaction has been made by the petitioner-firm after de-registrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
