9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns were 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 (hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act) and the Central Sales Tax Act , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act) and they have challenged the assessment orders under the TNVAT Act for the years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are identical and they are two in number based on which the respondent has revised the assessments for all the years. 3. The respondent issued a pre-assessment notice dated 30.05.2016 stating that on verification of the monthly returns filed by the petitioner for the relevant y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect and accepted the objections and dropped the proposal. 4. The legal issue which falls for consideration in these writ petitions concerning the first issue which has been decided against the petitioner is whether the input tax credit can be denied to the petitioner for the reason that the seller had not been assessed or the selling dealer has not filed the returns. This issue is no longer res integra and has been decided by this Court in the case of Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai-6 reported in (2012) 50 VST 179 (Mad) followed in the case of Infiniti Wholesale Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Koyambedu reported in (2015) 82 VST 457. These decisions were followed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, the Revenue could not deny the claim of the assessee. Going by Rule10(2) of TN Vat Rules read along with section 19(1) of the TN Vat Act, it is clear that so long as the purchasing dealer has complied with the requirements as given under Rule 10(2), the claim of the purchasing dealer cannot, by any length of reasoning, be denied by the Revenue. The mere fact that the Revenue had not made 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter that the selling dealer had not paid the collected tax. The liability had to be fastened on the selling dealer and not on the petitioner-dealer which had shown proof of payment of tax on purchases made. The orders were thus set-aside. 5. The above decisions would be squarely applicable to the facts of the case and in fact the reasons assigned in the impugned order in the case of M/s.The Computer Consultants (supra) was same as that of the present cases. Therefore, the basis on which the impugned order has been passed denying the entire tax credit on verification of the Departmental website alleging that the petitioner has reported higher purchase and availed ITC in excess cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
