Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Tvl. Rajyog Steels, Rep. by its Proprietor C. Ramesh Kumar, Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai

2016 (8) TMI 803 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Assessment order - Revision of input tax credit purchase from registration cancelled dealers TNVAT - Held that: - Whatever benefits that has accrued to the petitioners based on valid documents in the course of sale and purchase of goods, for which tax has been paid cannot be declined. The transaction that took place when the registration certificates of the selling dealer were in force cannot be denied to the petitioners/assesses. The notices, revised assessment orders and the provisional as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Government Pleader JUDGEMENT COMMON ORDER Heard Mr.S.Ravee Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and with their consent, these writ petitions are taken up for disposal. 2.The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, (TNVAT Act) and the Central Sales Act (CST Act). In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders of assessment w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Chennai reported in (2013) 59 VST 256 (Mad), wherein the Court held as follows: 13.An almost identical issue was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company, (1998) 109 STC 439. In that case, the respondents, who were registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, purchased goods during the period from 1.1.1967 to 31.1.1967 from one Sulekha Enterprises Corporation, who is also a registered dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 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

. The High Court however reversed the decision and upheld the claims of the assessees, holding that disallowing the deductions claimed by the respondents would amount to tax on transactions which were otherwise not taxable. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue, held as follows: "4.The High Court answered the question in the negative and in favour of the respondents. The High Court noted that the effect of disallowing the deductions claimed by the respondents .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

purchase, namely, the cancellation of the selling dealer's registration with retrospective effect, that the tax-free resales had become liable to tax, would be tantamount to levying tax on the resales with retrospective effect. 5.In our view, the High Court was right. A purchasing dealer is entitled by law to rely upon the certificate of registration of the selling dealer and to act upon it. Whatever may be the effect of a retrospective cancellation upon the selling dealer, it can have no e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version