9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 1249 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxReversal of input tax credit - stock transfer - TNVAT Act - Held that - It may be true that the petitioner has not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer about this amendment. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer also did not appear to have been aware of the amendment. On that ground alone, the impugned orders of assessment insofar as it relates to ITC reversal for Stock Transfer covered by Form F is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration by taking into consideration the notification issued by the Government dated 29.01.2016, as observed earlier - the matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer insofar as it relates to ITC reversal for Stock Transfer covered by Form F - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Challenge to Assessment Order for years 2010-11 to 2013-14 regarding reversal of Input Tax Credit for stock transfer covered by Form F under TNVAT Act, 2006. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act, challenged the Assessment Order for the mentioned years, primarily focusing on the reversal of Input Tax Credit for stock transfer covered by Form F. The court noted a recent amendment to the Act, specifying a separate column for Stock Transfer/Consignment sales without Form F-Section 19(2). Despite the petitioner not informing the Assessing Officer about this amendment, the court observed that the Officer also seemed unaware of it. Consequently, the court remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of the notification issued by the Government in January 2016. The court partly allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the issue of ITC reversal for Stock Transfer covered by Form F back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in light of the relevant notification. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal for other issues, given that they had already paid 10% of the disputed amount. The court directed that if an appeal is filed within thirty days, it should be entertained without limitation constraints, and the Appellate Authority should consider the amount already paid by the petitioner. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a consequence of the judgment.
|
