TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the assessee with the alleged invoices of the selling dealers qua movement of goods. No attempt has been made by the Authorities to verify whether the said transactions based on which the input tax credit claimed was genuine or not. Merely placing reliance on the report of the Enforcement Authority, the input tax credit has been denied as no tax was paid by the selling dealer. Independent application of mind by the Prescribed Authority is sine qua non for taking decision. Further, it is well settled legal principle that the assessee claiming input tax credit is required to satisfy the authorities that he has purchased the goods from the registered selling dealers who have issued the invoices and collected the tax. The Department canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u Impex and Karnataka Metal Stores? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law? 3. The respondent assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the trading of Aluminum profiles and self-adhesive tapes etc., under the name and style of M/s. Surfaces and is registered under the provisions of the Act. The respondent has filed returns for the assessment periods September 2011, December 2011, February 2012, March 2012 to June 2012 and claimed input tax credit as provided under Section 10[3] of the Act. The respondent s case was taken up for reassessment by the prescribed authority after examining the books of accounts, returns, balance sheet, sample invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the First Appellate Authority but the Tribunal has allowed the appeal without considering the primary aspect of tax liability not being discharged by the selling dealers. 6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Microqual Techno Private Limited, Bangalore V/s. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Zone-I, Bangalore [2011 (71) Kar.L.J. 10 (HC) (DB)] and M/s. Packwell Industries V/s. State of Karnataka [2012 SCC OnLine Kar 9136] in support of his submissions and thus contended that the Tribunal erred in not properly appreciating Section 70 of the Act inasmuch as burden of proof in allowing the appeal. 7. There is no representation on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer to claim the input tax credit. The Department cannot deny the input tax credit merely for the reason that the selling dealer has not deposited the tax. Action has to be initiated against the selling dealer. The attempt made by the Department in denying the input tax credit as no tax was paid by the selling dealers may not be appreciated for the reason that the entitlement of the claim of input tax credit by the registered dealer cannot be stretched to the extent of compliance made by the selling dealers in depositing the tax amount in full or part thereof as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka V/s. Rajesh Jain, Partner M/s. Salem Steel Trading Company, Kurubarapet Main Road Cross, Bangalor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
