9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , CHENNAI-600 102. TIN/33270483294/2016-2017 Dated: 03.08.2020 Sub: - TNVAT Act 2006-Tvl.Coastal Plastochem P Limited-Assessment Year 2016-17-Purchased from cancelled dealers-Notice issued-Order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file their objections and fail to avail the said opportunities, the proposals in this notice will be confirmed without further notice. A notice dated; 21.01.2020 was issued in the reference 1st cited. In the reference second cited. In the reference 2nd cited, the dealers stated that they are in receipt of the notice and stated that at the time of purchasing goods they were active dealer and moreover they have done all banking transaction. Under the circumstances they request you not to reverse input availed by you against the Purchases made from above dealers. I reference 3rd cited they have stated that in respect of the cancelled dealers of M/s Frontline polymers (TIN No.33472804491) and M/s Sri Kanan chemical (TIN 33492844056) they en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er that the demand confirmed in the impugned order is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra Vs. Suresh Trading Company 1998 (109) STC 439 (SC) which decision has been followed by this Court even in the context of input tax credit. It is submitted that the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser of materials which were traded by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to input tax credit under the provisions under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 3. It is submitted that purchases were made by the petitioner through normal banking channel (mode of payment) and that the cancellation of the registrations of the dealers with retrospective effect from 23.12.2016 and 01.07.2016 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s themselves speaks. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Maharastra Vs. Suresh Trading Company 1998 (109) STC 439 (SC) by the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore, distinguishable on facts of the case and cannot be applied to the facts of the case. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respondents perused the impugned order. The facts on records indicate that the purchases were made by the petitioner long after the cancellation of the registration of Front Line Polymers on 04.01.2017 and one day after the cancellation of registration of Sri Kannan Chemicals on 22.07.2016. Therefore, there is no merits in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed. However, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
