TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 - From perusal of these documents, it can safely be concluded that the transaction is not a bogus transaction or make believe transaction. Since M/s. Tallam Apparels is not a bogus dealer, as is evident from the documents produced by the assessee, dis-allowing of input tax is incorrect. There cannot be any dispute, that burden is cast on the assessee to establish the transaction to lay a claim for deduction of input tax by production of necessary documents. This Court is of the considered opinion that the assessee has discharged this burden by placing necessary documents. In the case on hand, if M/s. Tallam Apparels has not remitted the tax to the Department, for which assessee cannot be penalized. Therefore, we do not find any justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and sold by charging tax to the buyers, by issuing tax invoices as per Section 29 of the KVAT Act and Rules. In spite of discharge of burden cast under the statute the audit authority passed an order dated 26.12.2014 under Section 39(1) of the Act, rejecting the input tax credit claimed by the appellant. The appellant aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Audit, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the AA for short) has audited the books of accounts and rejected the returns filed by assigning reasons. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the AA, challenged the same before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-1, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the FAA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating the scope and ambit of Section 70 of the Act and thus, sought for allowing the Revision Petition. 5. He further contended that whether the assessee was entitled for input tax rebate was not at all properly discussed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned order having regard to the materials available on record especially in the form of inspection report and thus sought for allowing the Revision Petition. 6. In support of his contention, learned Government Advocate relied on the judgment reported in ( 1) 2011 (71) KLJ 10 (DB) in the case of Microqual Techno Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and (2) 2012 (73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e necessary for disposal of this Revision Petition are culled out hereunder: 3. Levy of tax.- (1) The tax shall be levied on every sale of goods in the State by a registered dealer or a dealer liable to be registered, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) The tax shall also be levied, and paid by every registered dealer or a dealer liable to be registered, on the sale of taxable goods to him, for use in the course of his business ,by a person who is not registered under this Act. 70. Burden of proof.- (1) For the purposes of payment or assessment of tax or any claim to input tax under this Act, the burden of proving that any transaction of a dealer is not liable to tax, or any claim to deduction of inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pees whichever is higher but which shall not exceed double the amount of tax or five thousand rupees whichever is higher. 11. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that the assessee produced the true copies of communication certificate, turnover analysis of M/s. Tallam Apparels for the year 2012-13. It is not in dispute that M/s. Tallam Apparels was registered dealer bearing Tin No.29850733495. 12. From perusal of these documents, it can safely be concluded that the transaction is not a bogus transaction or make believe transaction. Since M/s. Tallam Apparels is not a bogus dealer, as is evident from the documents produced by the assessee, dis-allowing of input tax is incorrect. There cannot be any dispute, that burden is cast o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
