9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings against the assessee for the months April 2016 to August 2016. Since identical facts have given rise to all these revisions and a single question of law is involved, these revisions are being decided by a common order. 2. The present revisions have been filed raising the following question of law for the A.Y. 2016-17 (April): "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in granting the benefit of input tax credit of Rs. 7,14,451/- against the provisions of Section 8 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act?" 3. Similar questions have been raised in the other revisions. 4. Briefly, the assessee was engaged in trading in leather and shoe material. During the months of April to Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the revenue submits that by virtue of Rule 21 (3) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), the revenue was entitled to disallow ITC claimed, since the transactions in question were only paper transactions and no goods had been purchased by the assessee. In support of his submissions, learned Standing Counsel has relied on various passages of the orders passed by the three authorities. He submits the persons/dealers i.e. the first seller (from whom the goods originated) was non-existent. Therefore, the purchasers from such first sellers i.e. the persons from whom the assessee claims to have made the purchases never acquired any goods on which ITC was claimed. He, therefore submits, the enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transactions claimed by the assessee. At the same time, it is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel, the enquiries referred to in the orders were wholly ex-parte and with which the assessee had not been confronted during the course of the proceedings. Neither those submissions were recorded during the course of the assessment proceedings against the assesse nor any opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses was given to the assessee. 13. In such circumstances, though normally the Court may have remanded the matter to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after allowing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon by the revenue, however, in view of the fact that the present proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
