9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, the petitioner received a revision notice dated 24.07.2017 proposing to revise the assessment for the assessment year 2012-2013 and the second respondent included under the said proposal for reversing the ITC for purchases made by the petitioner from dealers whose TIN were cancelled. According to the petitioner, objecting the revision notice, the petitioner sent a detailed reply dated 01.11.2017 and requested the respondent to drop the revision proposal stated in the revision notice. It is the case of the petitioner that without due consideration to the documents and submission made by the petitioner, the second respondent passed the assessment order dated 27.12.2017 confirming its proposal for revision of assessment. 2.3.Aggrieved by the said revised assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner filed its appeal before the first respondent which was numbered as AP No.VAT 44/2018. The first respondent has partly allowed the appeal and disallowed the ITC claim made by the petitioner on cancelled dealers through its order dated 03.04.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that he produced all invoices and other documents required under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framed by him. The first respondent under the impugned order dated 03.04.2018 has partly allowed the appeal and has answered Point No.1 in favour of the petitioner, Point No.2 & 3 against the petitioner upholding the reversal of input ITC by the assessing officer along with the consequent payment of penalty as the petitioner did not produce documentary evidence to prove that the registration certificate of the selling dealers were cancelled. 7.It is the case of the petitioner that excepting for this one line cryptic order, wherein the first respondent has stated that no documentary evidence was produced in respect of the selling dealers whose registration certificates were cancelled, no proper reason has been given by the first respondent under the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner has been given opportunity by the first respondent to raise all grounds available to him under law to attack the assessment order dated 27.12.2017, which is the subject matter of the appeal. The only point raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the first respondent has passed a cryptic order which amounts to a non-speaking one and further, the first respondent has also without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealers has observed that the petitioner did not produce documentary evidence to prove that the registration certificate of the selling dealers were cancelled merely with retrospective effect and only due to the said reason, the first respondent had confirmed the assessment order passed by the second respondent. In fact, only after considering the assessment order passed by the second respondent, the first respondent has partly allowed the appeal in respect of Point No.1 namely whether the levy of tax on receipt of commission to the tune of Rs. 1,05,382/- at 5% p.a., is correct or not and in respect of that point, the first respondent has passed an order in favour of the petitioner. 10.Therefore, from the above it is clear that the first respondent has considered the impugned assessment order and only thereafter has passed the impugned order dated 03.04.2018. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the same and his contention that there cannot be any reversal of input tax credit, his only remedy is only to file an appeal under Section 58 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 before the sales tax appellate tribunal. This fact was also brought to the notice of the petitioner even under the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TNVAT Act, has considered the assessment order and has passed final orders by virtue of the impugned order. On the ground of principles of natural justice and on the ground of non-application of mind, the instant writ petition has been filed. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sujatha Jewellery, cited supra is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. b)Insofar as the judgment in the case of The Siements Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd., Vs. the Union of India and another reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1785, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case as the first respondent under the impugned order dated 03.04.2018 has given reasoning that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the registration certificate of the selling dealers were cancelled merely with retrospective effect. 13.Further, under the impugned order dated 03.04.2018, the first respondent has applied his mind and has in fact partly allowed the appeal by partly granting the relief to the petitioner by allowing the petitioner's appeal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
