2016 (11) TMI 896

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imed input tax credit and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment was made. Even the pre-revision notices and the orders under challenge fairly state that the Petitioner-dealer had paid tax to the dealer. It is, therefore, for the Department to proceed against the selling dealer for recovery of tax in the manner known to law. The provision under which the present action has been initiated, namely, invoking sub-section(16) of Section(19) does not appear to be correct - if the selling dealer has not paid the collected tax and that liability has to be fastened on the selling dealer and it cannot be mulcted on the petitioners-purchasing dealers who had shown the proof of payment of tax on the purchase made. The petitioners alr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not produce any document at the time of passing the order. 4. But as per my judgment of this Court in the matter of M/s. V.V.V Sons Edible Oils Limited, Virudhunagar -vs - The Commercial Tax Officer -I, Virudhunagar Assessment Circle, Virudhungar(W.P(MD)Nos.13897 to 13913 of 2013) reported in 2014-15 (20) TNCTJ 205 it is very clear that the authority cannot assess the tax. The relevant paragraphs 5 and 6 would run thus: 5.It is very clearly stated that if the selling dealer has not paid the collected tax and that liability has to be fastened on the selling dealer and it cannot be mulcted on the Petitioner-purchasing deal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the dealer. It is not so in these cases. In the present case, the Petitioner-dealer, admittedly, had paid the tax to the selling dealer and claimed input tax credit and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment was made. Even the pre-revision notices and the orders under challenge fairly state that the Petitionerdealer had paid tax to the dealer. It is, therefore, for the Department to proceed against the selling dealer for recovery of tax in the manner known to law. The provision under which the present action has been initiated, namely, invoking sub-section(16) of Section(19) does not appear to be correct on the admitted facts as above. All the revision orders revising the input tax credit on the admitted case of tax having .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X