TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns valid? - Held that: - decision in the case of Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai-6 [2011 (10) TMI 567 - Madras High Court] relied upon where it was held that if the Selling Dealer has not collected tax, that liability has to be fastened on the Selling Dealer. That apart, merely because the Selling Dealer had filed incorrect particulars, will not be a reason to reverse the ITC availed by the Purchasing Dealer. Opportunity of being heard - in the notice dated 08.07.2016, the respondent stated that the petitioner can file objections to the notice and they will be heard in person at his office at 11.30 a.m. on any working days from within 15 days from the date of receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the respondent and with the consent on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [TNVAT Act, 2006]. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 08.07.2016, alleging that in the said order, there is a wrong availment of Input Tax Credit [ITC]. The reason is that on verification of the website of the dealer, viz., the petitioner, it is revealed that they purchased goods from M/s.AMI Enterprises for the months from January 2014 to March 2014 and claimed ITC. However, in the Annexure-II of the said Selling Dealer, viz., M/s.AMI Enterprises, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to the petitioner, it appears that no specific date was fixed for personal hearing. While completing the assessment, the respondent has recorded the objections given by the petitioner in their reply dated 02.08.2016, however, proceeded to reject the reply on the ground that the revised return filed by the Selling Dealer, viz., M/s.AMI Enterprises, is an after-thought. Therefore, the proposal in the notice dated 08.07.2016 was confirmed. 4. The first mistake done by the respondent is not affording an opportunity of personal hearing, though he had stated that such opportunity will be given in the notice dated 08.07.2016. However, one issue that has to be pointed out is that in the notice dated 08.07.2016, the respondent stated that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Dealer has not filed returns nor paid taxes or they are unregistered Dealers or their registration were retrospectively cancelled, that may not be the grounds to reverse the ITC availed by the Purchasing Dealer. That apart, the need for affording an opportunity of personal hearing has been reiterated by this Court in SRC Projects Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in 2008-09 [14] TNCTJ 220. 6. The third mistake committed by the respondent is in disbelieving the revised return or rather, summarily rejecting the revised return filed by the Selling Dealer before his Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the respondent is not the Assessing Officer of the Selling Dealer. Therefore, he has no jurisdiction to reject the revised return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
