New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - [2016] 88 VST 178 (Mad) - Reversal of ITC - petitioner has purchased goods from the seller by paying tax - Held that:- At the time of purchasing the goods, admittedly, the petitioner has paid the tax to the seller, which is not under dispute. The reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner firm is denied Input Tax Credit just because the dealer/seller has failed to report the same before the respondent. The reason adduced by the respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt Adv ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in TIN/33645701933/13-14, dated 05.06.2015 and quash the same. By the said order, the respondent has revised the assessment for the year 2013-2014 under Section 27 of TNVAT Act 2006. 2. 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 r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not paid the tax. Therefore, the respondent proposed to reverse the input tax credit and levy tax and penalty. 3. While the situation stood thus, the petitioner has filed reply to the notice on 09.03.2015 stating that the petitioner has paid the tax to the consignor and therefore, there is no default on their part. The petitioner further stated that they have purchased the goods only after paying the tax properly and the petitioner enclosed the copy of purchase bills along with its reply. Howev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f his return. It is not the fault of the buyer. Inspite of the said fact, the impugned order has been assessed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated earlier. 5. To back his averment, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced an unreported order made in W.P.(MD).No.2036 to 2038 of 2013, Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct), dated 29.01.2013, to state that in an identical case, this Court has allowed the cla .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Commissioner, Tirunelveli and therefore, he is not entitled to avail the tax. 7. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version