9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n regularly paying tax as per the returns. The petitioner has paid the tax for the assessed period based on VAT 100 returns with the concerned LVO Office. The dispute is with regard to the period involved from April 2005 to July 2007. For the purpose of doing business, the petitioner has purchased the goods from the local dealers and claimed input-tax rebate for having collected four per cent tax on packing materials and 12% per cent on plywood sheets and also made purchase of jungle wood from the unregistered dealer. The petitioner has claimed the input-tax rebate on the purchase of jungle wood and plywood. However, the assessing officer visited the business place for the audit of books of accounts. The said assessing officer found that the petitioner has purchased the goods from the following unregistered local dealers and availed of the input-tax rebate: (i) M/s. New Timber Traders, New Bamboo Bazar, Bangalore-560 002; (ii) M/s. Adnan Timber Mart, New Bamboo Bazar, Bangalore; (iii) M/s. Swastik Plywoods, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore; (iv) M/s. Rajadhani Glass and Plywoods, Manjunathanagar; (v) M/s. Mahadev Trading Company, Chandapura, Bangalore-81; (vi) M/s. Rajashree Distr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate authority as well as the assessing authority 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 petitioner, which was confirmed by the first appel late authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal. He further contended that section 47(4) enables the State Government to recover the tax from the dealer who has unauthorisedly collected the tax from the buyer. The assessing authority without taking action against those persons, disallowed the input-tax rebate which is contrary to law. He also dre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ood from those dealers. Further those dealers have not credited the tax collected from the petitioner. Hence, the question of allowing the input-tax rebate to the petitioner does not arise. All the three authorities after considering the materials available on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the input-tax rebate. She contended that for claiming input-tax rebate under section 10(4) of the Act, the tax invoices, debit note or credit note in relation to the sale shall be issued in accordance with section 29 or 30 of the Act and is with the registered dealer taking deduction at the time any return in respect of the sale is furnished, except such tax paid under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act. She further contended that the burden of proving payment or assessment of tax or to claim any input-tax rebate is on the dealer. Unless the dealer remits the tax collected to the State Government, the petitioner is not entitled for the rebate in the input tax and sought for dismissal of the revision petitions. After considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in these revisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has not challenged the de-registration of the six dealers in these revision petitions. We find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated April 8, 2010 confirming the order passed by the first appellate authority dated March 3, 2008 and also order dated Fe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
