TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - W.P.Nos.39262 to 39265 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.33622 & 33624 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2020 - MR. C. SARAVANAN J. For Petitioner : Mr. J. Arokhiaraj in all W.Ps For Respondents : Mr. A.N.R. Jayaprathap Standing Counsel, in all W.Ps. COMMON ORDER By this common order all the Writ Petitions are being disposed. 2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 01.12.2015 passed by the 1st respondent in TIN No. 33050702247/2011-12, TIN No.33050702247/2012-13, TIN No.33050702247/2013-14 and TIN No.33050702247/2014-15 and the consequential impugned proceedings dated 23.03.2016. 3. The petitioner is a trader in UPS. The petitioner s place of business was inspected and audited under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner was in a position to co-relate with relevant documents contemplated under Section 19(10)(a) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 and Rule 10(2) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007 in respect of each and every purchases made by it to claim input tax credit in accordance with law under Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 323 and in Althajf Shoes (P) Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2683. 9. In Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, therefore, for the department to proceed against the selling dealer for recovery of tax in the manner known to law. The provision under which the present action has been initiated, namely invoking sub-section (16) of Section 19, does not appear to be correct on the admitted facts as above. All the revision orders revising the input tax credit on the admitted case of tax having been paid to the selling dealer, therefore, are found to be totally incorrect, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and Rules. As a result, all the orders are liable to be set aside. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned orders are well reasoned and require no interference. He further submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate recommendations to the State Government, and till then to devise a procedure which is fair and reasonable and afford an opportunity to the dealer to put-forth his case and establish that he is entitled to the concession/set-off availed. 14. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the cases are remitted back to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law keeping in mind the decisions of this Court in Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 323 and in M/s.JKM Graphics Solutions Private Limited Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2017 SCC OnLine 669. 15. Since it is informed that though the mechanism has been devised as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
