TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tary evidence are in favour of the dealer and when goods have even moved against e -sugams. The case on hand does not satisfy the conditions of documentary evidence proved in favour of the dealer and goods having been moved against e -sugams. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT FINANCE DEPARTMENT BANGALORE VERSUS SRI RAJESH JAIN PARTNER M/S SALEM STEEL TRADING COM [ 2016 (12) TMI 1869 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as well as BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] were considered by the Tribunal along with the judgments of M/s. Pack Well Industries supra and M/s. Microqual Techno Private Limited, Bangalore supra, having analyzed the material facts vis- -vis the Rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court the judgments, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeals filed by the assessee allowing the Cross Appeals filed by the Revenue. The revision petition stands dismissed. - S.T.R.P. No.77/2018 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2021 - HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI PETITIONER (BY SR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the Tribunal has traveled beyond the scope of the grounds raised in the appeal in disallowing the entire turnover for the input tax credit mainly on the ground that the M/s. Mark Trading Company and M/s. Master Trading Company, the registered dealers had not paid the amount to the Government. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue justifying the impugned judgment submitted that the so called dealers M/s. Mark Trading Company and M/s. Master Trading Company are found to be not genuine as per the report of the Enforcement Officers as well as the visit made by the Assessing Authority himself. Further, the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices for transportation of the goods were not the goods vehicles to transport iron and steel. The details of the status of the vehicle registration number mentioned in the invoice has been referred by the Tribunal which are more or less non-transport vehicles like Auto Rickshaw, Van, Jeep, Car, Two Wheeler, KSRTC Bus. Having regard to these factual aspects, the Tribunal has referred to the Rulings of this Court in the case of M/s. Pack Well Industries V/s. State of Karnataka [STRP No.1/2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny and M/s. Master Trading Company, further discrepancies were noticed relating to the sale goods/invoices issued by the said selling dealers inasmuch as the registration number of the vehicles in which the goods were said to have been transported. The details of the vehicle registration number and status recorded by the Tribunal is quoted hereunder: Sl.No. Vehicle Registration No. Status 1. KA 41 0108 Tempo Traveller 2. KA 01 D 3137 Auto Rickshaw 3. KA11 6891 Light Goods Vehicle 4. KA 05 2850 Tractor 5. KA 02 C 1113 Auto Rickshaw 6. KA 01 D 5427 Auto Rickshaw 7. KA 01 D 3630 Bus 8. KA 04 7870 Light Goods Vehicle 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36. KA 52 0720 Minidor Pick Up Van 37. KA 10 X 0062 Two Wheeler 38. KA 02 CKN 4895 Wrong Registration 39. KA 51 MB 7251 Non Transport Vehicle 40. KA 51 BA 6651 Series Not Existing 41. KA 29 EA 0421 Two Wheeler 42. KA 22 L 4848 Two Wheeler 43. KA 01 BC 0459 Series Not Opened 44. KA 04 L 2227 Two Wheeler 45. KA 03 F 8799 KSRTC Bus 46. KA 41 105 Maruthi Omni Van 47. KA 04 L 1856 Two Wheeler 48. KA 01 Z 7067 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis that he had paid input tax is a case of evasion of tax. In this case also the appellant has produced the un-signed purchase statement not the valid tax invoices and the books of accounts to claim the input tax even though the selling dealers has not paid the taxes to the Government and the investigations have proved that they are non-existing dealers. By obtaining the registration number and not doing the business as per provisions of law defeats the claim of the appellant that he has discharged the burden of proof in support of the input tax claimed. 14. In Salem Steel Trading Company supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the claim of input tax credit cannot be withheld for the reason that the selling dealers have not paid tax to the Department when all other documentary evidence are in favour of the dealer and when goods have even moved against e -sugams. The case on hand does not satisfy the conditions of documentary evidence proved in favour of the dealer and goods having been moved against e -sugams. 15. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the assessee in the case of State of Karnataka V/s. Salem Steel Trading Company [STRP 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
