9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of the GVAT Act. 3. Input tax credit for assessment year 2013-14 came to be disallowed in the case of the petitioner on the basis of alleged negative cross check reports. It was alleged that the vendors of the petitioners had purchased goods from some vendors whose registration certificates had been retrospectively cancelled and that there were dues in the case of the vendors. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 28.3.2018, by placing reliance upon section 11(7A) of the GVAT Act disallowed input tax credit in the case of the petitioners for the year 2013-14. It is the case of the petitioners that the negative cross check reports or assessment orders passed in the case of the petitioners were never provided to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the assessment order by way of a first appeal which came to be summarily dismissed on the ground of nonpayment of predeposit. The petitioners preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 22.10.2018, admitted the appeal and stayed recovery on condition that the petitioners deposit 20% of tax demand within a period of one month. 4. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his submissions, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Shree Bhairav Metal Corporation v. State of Gujarat, [2015] 82 VST 324 (Guj), wherein the court had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for input tax credit on the alleged purchase made by it from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, now that the copy of the order passed in the case of Lucky Enterprises was available with the petitioner therein. It was, accordingly urged that the petition requires to be allowed by granting the reliefs prayed for in the petition. 5. Opposing the petition, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that insofar as the case of the vendor Ardor International Private Limited is concerned, on verifying the books and documents for the year 2013-14, it is found that the total tax liability was Rs. 122,40,61,930/out of which a meagre amount of Rs. 7,09,79,684/has been deposited by way of challan, resulting into differential dues of Rs. 115,30,82,246/. It was submitted that the total sale transactions resulted into dues of Rs. 2570.53 crore under the GVAT Act, out of which Rs. 208.98 crore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e passing of the impugned orders by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, the petitioners made inquiries from the vendors and were furnished copies of the assessment orders made in their (the vendors') cases. By a communication dated 27th November, 2018 M/s. Infinium DetChem Private Limited informed the petitioners that there are no outstanding dues for the year 2013-14 under the Value Added Tax Act, 2003. A copy of the assessment order has also been annexed to the petition. Similarly by a letter dated 27th November, 2018 of Shri Bharat Shah with reference to sales made by M/s.Ardor Global Private Limited during the year 2013-2014, the petitioner has been informed that for the assessment for assessment year 2013-2014 under the GVAT Act has been completed and as per the assessment order, the company has been held liable to pay Rs. 5189/which has also been deposited by the company in the Government treasury in the month of June, 2016. A copy of the assessment order has also been annexed along with the letter. It is, accordingly, stated that for the year 2013-14, no amount is outstanding as payable by the company under the GVAT Act. 9. By letter dated 27.11.2018, Mr. Fenil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the petitioner from M/s Lucky Enterprises on the ground that the registration certificate of M/s Lucky Enterprises on the ground that the registration certificate of M/s Lucky Enterprises - seller has been cancelled ab initio on the ground that the seller had involved into the billing activities only and all the transactions by M/s Lucky Enterprises are held to be bogus. The petitioner has been denied the ITC on the ground of the aforesaid activities/alleged transactions between the petitioner and M/s Lucky Enterprises. However, as observed herein above, the petitioner was not served with the copy of the order in the case of M/s Lucky Enterprises. Now, the copy of the order passed in the case of M/s Lucky Enterprises is available with the petitioner. Therefore, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner with respect to observations made in the case of M/s Lucky Enterprises insofar as the alleged transactions between the petitioner and M/s Lucky Enterprises and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the transaction between the petitioner and M/s Lucky Enterprises in light of the observations made herein above, therefore, the matter is req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
