TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e files of the Department and that petitioner had also given the TIN number of these vendors. When such particulars were available, it was for the Department to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not remitted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, the Department could not deny the claim of the petitioner - matter remanded for fresh consideration - petition disposed off - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.10169 of 2014 & MP No.2 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2016 - MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM For the Petitioner : Mrs.R. Hemalatha For the Respondent : Mr. Kanmani Annamalai Addl. Government Pleader O R D E R Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring. Unfortunately the respondent proceeded to frame the assessment stating that the invoice copies have been verified with the website records and found that they have not been shown in the annexure. Further, it was found that dealers TIN Numbers were not specified in the invoices. Thus, in the absence of proof of payment of tax at other end, incorrect invoice copies, the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected and proposal in the pre-revision invoice was confirmed. The respondent also levied penalty under section 27(4)(ii) of the Act. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the stand taken in the impugned order has been reiterated, apart from mentioning the facts relating to the transactions effected by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e requirements as given under rule 10(2), the claim of the purchasing dealer could not be denied by the Department. Further, the Court took into consideration, the Circular issued by the Commissioner which clearly stated that so long as the vendor was not found to be a registered dealer on the files of the Department, the claim of the dealer for refund could not be rejected not delayed. Further, it was pointed out that the mere fact that the Department had not made an assessment on the dealer's vendor, per se, could not stand in the way of the assessing officer considering the claim of the dealer under section 19 of the Act. Further, it was held that going by section 17 of the Act, which provided that the burden on the purchasing dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
