TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making certain observations on merits. Recovery of input tax credit availed by the petitioner on the strength of invoices issued by dealers whose registrations were retrospectively cancelled - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra - the court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , PRESENTLY THIRUVERKADU ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI VERSUS INFINITI WHOLESALE LTD. [ 2016 (9) TMI 1431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] has taken a categorical view in the following cases that input tax credit cannot be denied to a purchasing dealer if the VAT registration of the supplier dealer who supplied the goods is cancelled retrospectively after the sale was affected to such a purchasing dealer - the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. Burd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision notices that were issued to the petitioner for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. Earlier, the petitioner was issued with 4 different revision notices all dated 28.1.2015 for the above assessment years. The petitioner reply to the above notice which culminated in 4 separate assessment orders dated 2.3.2015. The petitioner challenged these orders before this court in W.P.Nos. 9717-9720 2015. By a common order dated 1.4.2015, the impugned orders were set aside. The operative portion of the said order read as under:- 11.It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to appear in person and produce the documents required by the respondent duly attested by the seller on or before 30.4.2015 and on receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to proceedings dated 29.2.2016 for the assessment years 2013-14 and assessment years 2014-15. By an order dated 29.4.2016, this court had also granted an interim order for a period of 6 weeks. Thereafter, again 4 separate notices dated 18.4.2016 were issued to the petitioner for the respective assessment years. 6. Pursuant to the last mentioned notices dated 18.4.2016 for the respective assessment year, the petitioner once again filed separate objections dated 5.5.2015 for the respective assessment year. Pursuant to the aforesaid objection and hearing, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent for the respective assessment years. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent. The respondents have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer - made in W.A.No.763 of 2015 dated 19.06.2017; ii. Rayan Tile Bazaar Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) - made in W.P.No.1569 of 2018 dated 25.01.2018; iii. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Boaradway Assessment Circle, Chennai V. Bhairav Trading Company - (2016) 96 VST 315 (Mad); iv. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vs. Infiniti Wholesale Ltd. (2017) 99 VST 341 (Mad); v. Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) - (2012) 50 VST 179 (Mad); vi. Jinsasan Distributors V. Commercial Tax Officer (CT) - (2013) 59 VST 256 (Mad) ; vii. M/S.Rinku Steel Industries Assistant Commissioner (CT) - (2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad) ; viii. M/s.Aassaan Globel Trade Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) - made in W.P.Nos.25996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is not available for my perusal. In paragraph 8(a) to (b) of the written objection dated 5.5.2016, it has been stated as follows:- a. All purchases and sales were made within Chennai, b. We get orders from our customers over phone, ultimately we place orders for supply of material to the buyer covered by tax invoices issued by us. c. The goods were transported only through bullock carts in the night from the seller place of business to the buyer s place of business. d. The transfer charges includes the price of goods. We sold the goods purchased from our vendors duly Value-Added and transport charges for which we have paid taxes also. e. It is submitted that as per rule 6 (2) (a) of the T.N. VAT Rules, no movement regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent to pass fresh orders preferably within a period of 3 months from date of receipt of this order. 20.Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Petitioner is required to file a consolidated final reply to all the notices for the respective assessment years together with such evidence as may be available with the petitioner to substantiate the claim for input tax credit. 21.The Respondent as a quasi judicial officer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value-Added Tax Act, 2006 shall be guided by the principle of preponderance of probability. The respondent is expected to arrive at a fair conclusion on facts as to whether the quantum of goods sold in each of the invoice would justify a conclusion that there was a possibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
