Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 749 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 749 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Validity of revision assessment - input tax credit - scope of the SCN - genuineness of the purchases - movement of goods - Held that:- With regard to the averment that the proof for movement of goods has not been produced, it has to be pointed out that this was never the stand of the department in the show cause notice. At no point of time, the petitioner was called upon to produce any documents to prove the movement of goods. Therefore, the responden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd that the alleged difference in tax was reduced. This aspect of the matter was also not considered by the respondent. - the finding recorded by the respondent with regard to the difference in claim of ITC set aside - remanded back for passing speaking order. - Decided partly in favor of petitioner. - W. P. Nos. 13673 to 13678 of 2015, M. P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2015 - Dated:- 6-6-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Rajkumar For the Respondent : Mr. Manokaran Sundaram Additional G .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act). The petitioner is a manufacturer of finished leather, leather products and shoes and in the course of business effected local sales, inter state sales and also exports. The challenge in these writ petitions are to the revision of assessment passed by the respondent for six years (i.e. from 2007-08 to 2012-13). The impugned orders in all these writ petitions are on identical lines and therefore, it would be suffice to refer to the factual details raised .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t as discrepancies, in these cases we are not concerned with those issues, except with regard to the issue pertaining to the difference between the input tax credit claim and the tax paid by the petitioner's seller. The quantum of such difference differed in each of the assessment year. On receipt of these notices, the petitioner submitted individual representations pointing out that certain issues which were stated to be defects have been rectified and with regard to the difference in betwe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e documents annexed at page 37 of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the details were web reports pertaining to the cross verification of buyer and seller. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Web report does not contain the invoice number. On receipt of the details for all the assessment years, the petitioner filed individual replies on 27.06.2014 pointing out that some of their sellers filed monthly VAT returns along with Annexure II manually an .....

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 ₹ 28,98,817/- arrived at with reference to website statement for the year 2010-11 is not correct. The website statement for the year 2010-11 shows that there are 153 sellers. With great difficulty in most of the cases they collected Annexures II filed by their sellers and submitted to the Department for verification. 5. After mentioning the above, the petitioner stated that so far as the year 2010-11 is concerned, the difference has been reduced to ₹ 8,62,458/- from ₹ 28,98, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sentation on 29.12.2014 once again reiterating their earlier stand and enclosing the original invoices for verification by the respondent. This representation pertain to the year 2007-08. Similar representations were given for other assessment years as well. 6. Thereafter, the respondent has passed the impugned order of revision of assessment for all the six years. As pointed out earlier, the only issue which is being agitated by the petitioner in all these cases pertain to the difference in 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

any specific reasoning as to why the petitioner's case should not be accepted, except to state that the ITC which has been claimed by the petitioner is not supported by proof for movement of goods, the genuineness of the very purchases in respect of the ITC claim. Reference has been made to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Sujana Towers Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner in W.P.No.1481/2014 dated 10.06.2014. 7. In my view, the decision made in the case of Sujana Towers has absol .....

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