9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case of the petitioner firm is that they are carrying on business of trading in child food products. The said firm is regularly filing its monthly returns and paying the tax properly. For the assessment year 2013-2014, the petitioner has filed its return and paid the tax properly. While so, the respondent has issued a notice on 02.02.2015 stating that the monthly returns of the petitioner were scrutinized through the department websites and it is found that the petitioner has effected purchase of goods and claimed Input Tax Credit, but the consignor has not disclosed the transaction made with the petitioner firm in their monthly returns and not paid the tax. Therefore, the respondent proposed to reverse the input tax credit and levy ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order was passed on 05.06.2015. The Writ Petitioner filed Writ Petition on 02.09.2015 that is to say that he has come before this Court, after the statutory period of 60 days prescribed under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Act. Now, the alleged arrear claimed by the petitioner firm is revenue of the Government. Further, as per Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner and the petitioner has to file original invoice before the assessing authority for claiming the Input Tax Credit, but the petitioner has produced a Xerox copy of the invoice bills, which is not acceptable by the respondent. That apart, the petitioner has not preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n notices and the orders under challenge fairly state that the petitioner-dealer had paid tax to the dealer. It is, therefore, for the department to proceed against the selling dealer for recovery of tax in the manner known to law. The provision under which the present has been initiated, namely, invoking sub-section (16) of Section 19, does not appear to be correct on the admitted facts as above. All the revision orders revising the Input Tax Credit on the admitted case of tax having been paid to the selling dealer, therefore, are found to be totally incorrect, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and Rules. As a result, all the orders are liable to be set aside." 9. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court, foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
