9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent, is engaged in the business of general goods and has challenged the orders of assessment passed by the respondent for the years from 2009-10 to 2014-15. 3. The Officials of the Enforcement Wing inspected the place of business of the petitioner on 5.1.2015, 6.1.2015 and 7.1.2015 and based on their report, the respondent issued show cause notices dated 30.4.2015 for the relevant assessment years proposing to revise the total and taxable turnover on two grounds namely (i) reversal of input tax credit under Section 19(15) of the Act and (ii) reversal of input tax credit under Section 27(2) of the Act due to other end dealers not reported their sales turnover in Annexure II. On receipt of the show cause notices for all the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icates of the dealers, from whom the petitioner purchased goods, have been cancelled, they are held to be not a ground to reversal of input tax credit of the purchasing dealer in the decision of this Court in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) [reported in (2013) 60 VST 283] and this decision was followed by this Court in the case of Infiniti Wholesale Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner [reported in (2015) 82 VST 457]. 7. At this stage, it will be useful to refer to the operative portions of the said order in (2015) 82 VST 457 (cited supra), which are as follows : "22. In the case of Althaf Shoes (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai-6 reported in [2012] 50 VS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an assessment on the assessees vendor, per se, cannot stand in the way of the assessing officer considering the claim of the assessee under section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. A reading of the circular issued by Commissioner along with the provisions of the Act makes it clear that there is nothing repugnant in the said circular issued by the Commissioner as a head of the Department as regards the provisions of the Act on input-tax credit claim. Holding so, allowed the writ petition. 23. In the case of Sri Vinayaka Agencies [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad.), the petitioner was dealer in lubricants, purchasing lubricants from a registered dealer. On inspection, it was found that the vendor/dealer had not filed monthly returns nor paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said Act stating that the other end dealers have not reported sales turnover. Even in this regard, there is no discussion as to how such an issue was taken up by the respondent for consideration and there is no material borne out even in the show cause notices. Therefore, the proposal to reverse the input tax credit under Section 27(2) of the said Act is also erroneous and not sustainable. 10. With regard to levy of penalty, admittedly there is no allegation that there is any escapement of taxable turnover and when the books were accepted by the Authority, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. In this regard, it will be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras Vs. S.G.Jayaraj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
