9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration together. 2. These two appeals are filed by the common assessee challenging the order passed by the Revisional Authority by which, the Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as 'ITC' for short) claimed by the appellant in respect of certain purchases made from M/s Ashapura Metal Corporation and JAS Modular Systems in the Financial Year 2014-15 were disallowed. 3. The appellant entered into purchase transactions with M/s Ashapura Metal Corporation and JAS Modular Systems during the Financial Year 2014-15. The purchase invoice was raised by the selling dealer for a sum of Rs. 1,58,76,115/- and Rs. 2,40,03,328/-, respectively on which, VAT at the rate of 14.5% was charged. The appellant sought ITC in respect of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y exercised jurisdiction under Section 64(1) of the Act and took suo-moto cognizance of the issue. The Revisional Authority held that; "a) Unless the tax collected on sales by the selling dealer is remitted to the Government, the set off tax paid on purchases from such dealers does not qualify for rebate/ITC under law. b) The transaction between the appellant and the selling dealer is bogus as they were not existing at the time of transaction and; c) The appellant had not discharged his burden of proof to claim the input tax." 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Revisional Authority, the present appeal is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is impossible for the appellant to verify whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. He further contended that if the selling dealer has not deposited the tax with the Government, it is for the State to pursue the same against the selling dealer. Learned counsel also brought to our notice the order passed by this Court in STRP.No.82/2018 under similar circumstances. 9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the State cannot be expected to give ITC unless the selling dealer is not only shown to be existing and also establishing the legitimacy of such sales attracting liability in the hands of the selling dealer and that such VAT is deposited by the selling dealers with the State, in discharge of the obligations under the provisions of the Act. Learned Government Advocate therefore conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived the invoice value along with VAT through an online transfer from the appellant. The claim of the revenue that the goods purchased by the appellant could not have been transported by the vehicle is of no consequence, since the transaction is completed and a postmortem cannot now be resorted to verify whether the items were in fact transported by the conveyance or not? In that view of the matter, having regard to the various provisions under the Act which permits the revenue to pursue the selling dealers through various mode to recover the VAT collected including and not limited to initiating criminal proceedings against the selling dealers. 13. Hence, we do not find any justification in the revisional authority exercising jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
