TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fected by the petitioner after the date of de-registration under the KVAT Act, hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim input-tax rebate. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty as provided under section 72(2) of the Act and interest under section 36 of the Act. Thus revision petitions is answered against the petitioner. - STRP. Nos. 1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2012 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D.V. AND MANOHAR B., JJ. For the Appellant : B.G. Chidananda, Urs, For the Respondent : Smt. S. Sujatha, Additional Government Advocate, ORDER:- The order of the court was made by B. MANOHAR J.- These revision petitions are filed under section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( the Act , for short) against the order dated April 8, 2010 made in STA No. 876 of 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the first appellate authority ) in No. VAT/AP/5022007-08, upholding the reassessment order dated February 15, 2008, and denying the input-tax rebate for the period from April 2005 to July 2007. The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered dealers and the said unregistered dealers have not remitted the tax amount to the State Government. Being aggrieved by the order dated February 15, 2008, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate authority contending that the assessment order passed by the assessing authority denying the input-tax rebate is contrary to law. The first appellate authority after considering the arguments addressed by the parties dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in STA No. 876 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the first appellate authority as well as the assessing authority. The Appellate Tribunal after considering the matter in detail dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner had dealt with the unregistered dealers and the said unregistered dealers have not remitted the tax amount collected from the petitioner to the State Government. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the input-tax rebate. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71 KLJ 341 (Tri)(DB) in the case of Centum Industries Private Limited v. State of Karnataka 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 order impugned by allowing the revision petitions. Smt. Sujatha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State contended that the petitioner is carrying on the business for more than three decades. The petitioner has purchased the jungle wood from the de-registered dealers. The dispute in these revision petitions is with regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, purchase register were verified and compared with the returns filed by the dealers. On verification it was found that the petitioner-firm claimed inputtax rebate on the purchase of jungle wood and plywood from the six dealers who have been de-registered under the KVAT Act. In view of that, Further it is clear from the records that the petitioner-firm has not produced 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. Further, M/s. New Timber Traders, M/s. Adnan Timber Mart, M/s. Mahadevan Trading Company have been de-registered with effect from April 1, 2005. M/s. Swastik Plywoods has been de-registered with effect from January 1, 2006 and M/s. Rajdhani Glass and Plywood has been deregistered with effect from April 5, 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-registration of the said dealers. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Rajashree Distributors, they have not been registered under the Act. The transaction has been made by the petitioner-firm after de-registration of the said dealers. Further, the said firms have not remitted the tax collected from the petitioner-firm. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim input-tax rebate. Further, the petitioner-firm has not furnished reliable and proper information about the existence of the abovesaid six dealers. The whereabouts of the said dealers were also not made known to the Department. Under section 70 of the Act, the duty is cast upon the petitioner to prove that the said dealers have remitted the said amount to the State Government. Hence it is clear that the petitioner-firm has purchased the jungle wood from the bogus dealers who had TIN number without authority of law. The purchase was effected by the petitioner after the date of de-registration under the KVAT Act, hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim input-tax rebate. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty as provided under section 72(2) of the Act and interest under section 36 of the Act. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
