TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors, the appellant relied upon the invoices / bills and their books of profit and loss. However, it is required to be noted that not a single document and / or material was placed on record to show the actual movement of the goods from the vendors to appellant. The appellant miserably failed to prove the actual transaction by leading the cogent evidence and miserably failed to prove that purchase on which input tax credit was claimed, were genuine and / or on which the tax was paid. There are concurrent findings of fact given by all the authorities below that the alleged transaction / purchase worth ₹ 42,46,800/- from M/s. Leela Trading Company and three others, on which, the appellant claimed input tax credit of ₹ 1,69,872/- we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by affirming the order of the First Appellate Tribunal (respondent no.2 herein), who ignored to take into consideration documents on records, which has lead to miscarriage of the justice? C. Whether Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by not appropriately considering the facts of the case and law cited at Bar? D. Whether Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has erred to take into consideration the effect of the retrospective cancellation of the registration of the few of the vendors from whom this Appellant has purchased the goods? E. Whether Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the order of disallowing Inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere canceled, the AO held that appellant has failed to prove the actual purchase of the goods from the aforesaid vendors and as such there was actual moment of the goods at all on which the input tax credit was claimed and therefore, it was the case of billing activity only for the purpose of getting input tax credit and it was not proved by leading the evidence that in fact any tax was paid on the purchase of the aforesaid goods, for which tax was paid. Under the circumstances and by holding so the AO denied the input tax credit claimed by the appellant on the purchase of goods worth ₹ 42,46,800/- i. e. input tax credit claim of ₹ 1,69,872/-. 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that as such on cross check of the records it was found that the appellant was having the stock which was reflected in the books of account etc. It is submitted that even invoices with respect to the purchase of the aforesaid goods worth ₹ 42,46,800/- were also placed on record. It is submitted that therefore, denial of input tax credit on the purchase of goods worth ₹ 42,46,800/- from M/s. Leela Trading and three others dealers ought not to have been denied. Shri Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant has heavily relied upon the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Trading Co reported in 109 STC 439 in support of his above submissions. 4.0. Present appeal is opposed by Shri Gandhi, learned AGP ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndors. In support of the above claim that they actually purchase the goods worth ₹ 42,46,800/- from M/s. Leela Trading Company and other three vendors, the appellant relied upon the invoices / bills and their books of profit and loss. However, it is required to be noted that not a single document and / or material was placed on record to show the actual movement of the goods from the vendors to appellant. The appellant miserably failed to prove the actual transaction by leading the cogent evidence and miserably failed to prove that purchase on which input tax credit was claimed, were genuine and / or on which the tax was paid. There are concurrent findings of fact given by all the authorities below that the alleged transaction / purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by any of the authorities below denying the input tax credit of ₹ 1,69,872/- claimed by the appellant. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by all the authorities below. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, no substantial question of law arise in the present Tax Appeal and there are concurrent findings of fact given by all the authorities below with respect to genuineness of the transaction / purchase alleged to have been made by the appellant from M/s. Leela Trading Company and three others on which input tax credit was made, present Tax Appeal deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
