9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 793 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxDenial of Input tax credit Appellant claimed Input Tax Credit on alleged purchases made however AO denied Credit on ground that registration certificate dealer was cancelled ab initio as it was found that said dealer indulged into billing activities only Tribunal disallowed input tax credit of tax paid on purchases without verifying genuineness of transactions Held that - it was not in dispute that when Assessing Officer passed order disallowing Input Tax Credit claimed by appellant, appellant was not served with copy of order by which dealers registration was cancelled ab initio In case of Shree Bhairav Metal Corporation 2015 (6) TMI 624 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT current court dealing with similar case remanded matter to AO to consider matter / claim of concerned dealer of Input Tax Credit, afresh Impugned order passed by Tribunal denying Input Tax Credit claimed by appellant on alleged purchases made by appellant hereby quashed and set aside Matter remitted to consider claim after giving opportunity to appellant afresh in accordance with law Decided in favour or Assesse.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the Tribunal in disposing of the second appeal on merits despite the first appellate authority's summary rejection due to non-payment of predeposit. 2. Justification of the Tribunal in disallowing input tax credit (ITC) on purchases from M/s. Dev Enterprise without verifying the genuineness of the transactions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Tribunal in Disposing of the Second Appeal on Merits: The appellant did not press question No. (A), which pertained to whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding the second appeal on merits despite the first appellate authority's summary rejection due to non-payment of predeposit. Therefore, the court did not address this issue further. 2. Justification of the Tribunal in Disallowing ITC on Purchases from M/s. Dev Enterprise: The appellant, engaged in the manufacturing of oil and registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, claimed ITC on purchases made from M/s. Dev Enterprise during 2006-07. The Assessing Officer denied the ITC on the grounds that M/s. Dev Enterprise's registration was canceled ab initio due to its involvement in billing activities only, with no actual sale or movement of goods. This resulted in a total demand of Rs. 3,40,330, including tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant's appeal to the first Appellate Authority was dismissed due to non-payment of the predeposit. Subsequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's second appeal, confirming the Assessing Officer's order. The appellant argued that the issue of ITC disallowance was covered by a decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Bhairav Metal Corporation v. State of Gujarat, which required the Assessing Officer to consider documentary evidence and determine the genuineness of transactions. The appellant contended that they were not served with the order canceling M/s. Dev Enterprise's registration at the time of the Assessing Officer's decision. The court noted that the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer denied ITC based on the cancellation of M/s. Dev Enterprise's registration and its involvement in billing activities. However, the appellant was not served with the order canceling the registration, which was a breach of natural justice. The court referred to the Shree Bhairav Metal Corporation case, where it was held that a dealer must be given an opportunity to prove the genuineness of transactions and justify ITC claims, even if the seller's registration was canceled ab initio. The court emphasized that the dealer must prove the actual movement of goods and the genuineness of transactions beyond mere production of bills and vouchers. In light of the Shree Bhairav Metal Corporation decision, the court allowed the present Tax Appeal in part. It quashed the orders of the Tribunal and the Assessing Officer and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the appellant's ITC claim. The appellant was to be given an opportunity to prove the genuineness of transactions with M/s. Dev Enterprise. The court clarified that no fresh evidence would be allowed, and the exercise must be completed within three months. The amount deposited by the appellant would be retained by the department, subject to the ultimate outcome of the fresh adjudication. The court concluded by disposing of the main Tax Appeal and the related OJ Civil Application No.280/2014, with no order as to costs.
|
