TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 729X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader the exercise were for the limited purpose of finding out the ground of perversity, this Court may encroach into the function of an appellate authority where the facts threadbare are considered, thereafter principle of law decided. The petitioner is given liberty to file appeal within the period of limitation prescribed by the statute and also file an application seeking stay of the order in Ext.P6 - directed to maintain status quo as on date vis-a-vis Ext.P6 for a period of two months - Petition disposed off. - WP(C). No. 16884 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2019 - MR S. V. BHATTI, J. For The PETITIONER : ADVS. SRI. HARISANKAR V. MENON AND SMT. MEERA V. MENON ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sub Total 517176293 5171760.96 522348053.96 5171760.95 TOTAL 517176293 5171760.96 522348053.96 5171760.95 3 . Through Ext.P2 petitioner applied for refund of tax said to have been paid in excess. Thereafter 1st respondent issued Ext.P4 notice and paragraph 1 Clause (a) deals with the main co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al input credit availed by us for the above year is only ₹ 51,71,761 as can be seen from the annual return as well as the audit statement in form 13 A filed. Therefore the proposal to disallow input tax credit of ₹ 2,69,27,728 is not an order. 5. Ext.P6 is the order made by the 1st respondent and while concluding the issue of the credit to which the petitioner is entitled to, the 1st respondent recorded the following findings:- ( a) As per annual return assessee has carried out interstate stock transfer out for an amount of ₹ 61,96,67,865 of Bullion and jewelery of all kinds. Proviso 3rd to Section 11(3) of KVAT Act 2005 where any goods purchased in the State are subsequently sent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould like to reassess the input credit tax component the 1st respondent can deal with ₹ 51,71,000 but not determine the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner as ₹ 2,69,00,000. He does not dispute that against the orders in Exts.P6 and P6(a) the remedy of appeal is available but perversity persuaded and embolden the petitioner to straight away and invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 8. The writ prayers are stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader. She takes a cue from the very contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that this Court even for the limited purpose of appreciating the alleged ground of perversity looks into all the details the same amounts to looking int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
