2015 (12) TMI 850 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reversal of ITC - petitioner has purchased goods from the seller by paying tax - Held that - At the time of purchasing the goods, admittedly, the petitioner has paid the tax to the seller, which is not under dispute. The reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner firm is denied Input Tax Credit just because the dealer/seller has failed to report the same before the respondent. The reason adduced by the respondent is unacceptable for the reason that when admittedly the petitioner firm has paid the tax, he cannot be made liable for the failure on the part of the seller to report the same to the respondent - Decision in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies 2013 (4) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT followed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision of assessment under Section 27 of TNVAT Act 2006 for the year 2013-2014.
2. Discrepancy in Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner due to non-disclosure by the consignor.
3. Acceptance of Xerox copy of invoice bills for claiming Input Tax Credit.
4. Statutory period for filing Writ Petition under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act.
5. Burden of proof on the petitioner to provide original invoices for claiming Input Tax Credit.
6. Failure to appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner affecting entitlement to avail tax.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a trading firm in child food products, filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the revised assessment order passed by the respondent under Section 27 of TNVAT Act 2006 for the year 2013-2014.

2. The respondent proposed to reverse the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner due to a discrepancy where the consignor did not disclose the transaction with the petitioner in their returns, leading to the demand for tax and penalty.

3. The petitioner contended that they had paid tax to the consignor and submitted purchase bills as proof, asserting their entitlement to Input Tax Credit despite the consignor's non-disclosure.

4. The respondent argued that the Writ Petition was filed after the statutory period of 60 days, emphasizing the revenue nature of the alleged arrears and the requirement for original invoices to claim Input Tax Credit.

5. The Court noted that the petitioner had paid tax at the time of purchase, making them not liable for the consignor's failure to report, citing a previous judgment that upheld the right to Input Tax Credit when tax was paid to the seller.

6. Relying on the precedent, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, stating that the petitioner should not be denied Input Tax Credit based on the seller's actions, directing the orders demanding tax and penalty to be set aside.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Court, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings involved.