TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasing dealer rest to the extent of showing that he is not liable to tax under the Act and read in the context of the fact that the assessee had given his sellers' TIN number and had also produced the invoices evidencing the purchase of materials of payment of tax, I do not think that the Revenue can successfully canvass its claim that the assessee is not entitled to have the refund - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos. 14349, Writ Petition Nos. 14350 of 2011, M. P. Nos. 1, M. P. Nos. 1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2011 - MRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN J. S. Ramanathan for the petitioner R. Sivaraman, Special Government Pleader (T), for the respondent ORDER The petitioner has sought fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent taking a view that the refund of input-tax credit granted could not be sustained, in view of the false claim of purchase from the dealers. Along with the demand, penalty was also levied. The order further reads that in the letter dated April 27, 2011, the petitioner had stated that they could not obtain the relevant returns from two of the dealers and hence requested that the input-tax credit for the amount claimed be disallowed. Thus to the extent of ₹ 1,37,674.64, the petitioner admitted that the credit claimed be withdrawn. However, as regards the balance of the amount, the petitioner stood by its contention that the claim was validly made. But the said contention was rejected. Thus to the extent of ₹ 10,19,30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing for the respondent pointed out to the decision of this court reported in [2010] 35 VST 103 (Mad) (Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited v. Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (Central Division)), wherein this court had held that the Commissioner has no legal authority to issue any clarification under the Value Added Tax Act and the clarification issued would not bind the assessee or the Revenue. It is further stated that the refund granted was sought to be withdrawn by reason of the fact that the petitioner's vendors had not remitted the tax. Since the non-remitting of the tax liability had caused prejudice to the Government's revenue, rightly, the assessing authority took proceedings to withdraw the relief granted to the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat matter the Revenue itself to say that the same will not be binding on the authority/assessee concerned. Leaving that aside, the perusal of section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act shows that the burden or proving that the transaction is not liable to tax lies on the assessee in respect of the claim on input-tax credit and the dealer has to prove that the transaction by him is not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Section 19(19) is the relevant provision for input-tax credit, which reads as follows: 19. (19) Where any registered dealer has availed input tax credit and has goods remaining unsold at the time of stoppage or closure of business, the amount of tax availed shall be reversed on the date of stoppage o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded Tax Act. Going by section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act that the burden on the purchasing dealer rest to the extent of showing that he is not liable to tax under the Act and read in the context of the fact that the assessee had given his sellers' TIN number and had also produced the invoices evidencing the purchase of materials of payment of tax, I do not think that the Revenue can successfully canvass its claim that the assessee is not entitled to have the refund. As already pointed out, the circular issued by the Commissioner clearly states that so long as the vendor is found to be a registered dealer on the files of the Revenue, the claim of the assessee for refund could not be rejected nor delayed. As already point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing authority, however, ignored the return filed in January, 2009, a fact which was also pointed out in the reply dated April 7, 2011 filed along with the copies of the return. The assessing officer ultimately held that the assessee had claimed refund of input-tax credit during the month of January, 2009 and in respect of the goods, which were not exported, the claim had been made by the assessee. Thus, apart from making an assessment on the claim, penalty was also proposed under section 27(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act at 50 per cent of the tax due. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had come before this court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out to the return filed in the month of December, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
