2016 (3) TMI 837 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Demand of VAT and imposition of penalty - Non-payment of VAT by sellers - Held that - the issue is covered by the judgment in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies v. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai and another 2013 (4) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , therefore, the payment of VAT by sellers is allowed. - Decided partly in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned orders for assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15
2. Reversal of Input Tax Credit and penalty imposed without jurisdiction
3. Alleged non-payment of VAT by sellers affecting Input Tax Credit
4. Interpretation of Section 19(16) regarding provisional Input Tax Credit
5. Pending appeals against similar judgments
6. Disposition of writ petitions allowing relief on VAT payment issue

Analysis:

The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the impugned orders for assessment years 2010-11 to 2014-15, seeking to quash them. The main contention was the reversal of Input Tax Credit and penalty imposed by the respondent, deemed to be without jurisdiction and against established legal principles. The petitioner claimed to have availed Input Tax Credit based on VAT payments to registered dealers but was directed to reverse it due to alleged non-payment of VAT by the sellers, contrary to previous court judgments.

The court referred to previous judgments, particularly one in 2013 (60) VST 283 (Mad), which clarified that Input Tax Credit availed is provisional and cannot be revoked solely on the grounds of non-payment of tax by the selling dealer. The court emphasized that the department should pursue the selling dealer for tax recovery instead of penalizing the purchasing dealer. The court found the revision orders incorrect and contrary to TNVAT Act and Rules, leading to the orders being set aside.

The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged that the issue in the writ petitions aligned with the 2013 (60) VST 283 (Mad) judgment and mentioned pending appeals against similar judgments without any interim orders. Following the court's precedent, the writ petitions were allowed, specifically addressing the VAT payment issue by sellers. The petitioners were granted relief on this specific matter, while being advised to pursue appeals against other aspects of the impugned orders, as they had appeal remedies available. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.