TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai-6 [2011 (10) TMI 567 - Madras High Court], where it was held 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 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 - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.Nos.27107 to 27111 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.23285 to 23289 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-8-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. With regard to the first issue, the petitioner while submitted their objections stated that they have claimed input tax credit as per the conditions stipulated under TNVAT Act and if their seller had failed to report the same, then the Department has to recover the same from the seller and not to deny the input tax credit availed by the petitioner. In this regard, reference was made to the decisions of this Court. With regard to the allegation that the petitioner has claimed input tax credit for the purchases from registration cancelled dealers it was submitted that the petitioner has wrongly furnished incorrect registration numbers of the selling dealers and therefore furnished the correct numbers. While considering the submission, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook into consideration the decision in the case of Althaf Shoes, referred above, and other decisions and held as follows:- 22 . In the case of Althaf Shoes (Pvt) Ltd., cited supra, the petitioner was a dealer and exporter of finished leather and other products, who claimed refund of ITC under Section 18 (2) of the VAT Act in respect of the exports made. Though the refund was granted, subsequently notice was issued seeking to withdraw the relief on the ground that its dealer had not reported the sales turnover and remitted tax and an order was passed, withdrawing the relief granted and levying penalty. While considering the said case, it was held that the circular issued by the Commissioner clearly states that so long as the vendor is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner was dealer in lubricants, purchasing lubricants from a registered dealer. On inspection, it was found that the vendor / dealer had not filed monthly returns nor paid tax to the Department. Though the petitioner had paid tax to the selling dealer, revision notice was issued proposing that the ITC should be reversed on the failure of the selling dealer in paying the tax. Allowing the said writ petition, it was held that at the time of filing the self-assessment return under Section 22 (2), the petitioner-dealer had followed Rule 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, and therefore, could not be said to have wrongly availed of input tax credit wrongly. Section 19 (1) states that input-tax credit can be claimed by a regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
