9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 924 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty under Section 54 (1) (19) of the U.P. VAT Act 2008 - false claim of an amount as input tax credit - Held that - The words false and fraudulent have a specific connotation insofar as legal proceedings are concerned. Tribunal failed to consider tax invoices and transportation bills. This material, in the opinion of the Court, was clearly relevant for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the claim of input tax credit was a false or fraudulent one - genuinity of transactions could not be established. Matter remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Issues:
Levy of penalty under Section 54 (1) (19) of the U.P. VAT Act 2008 based on false input tax credit claim. Analysis: The dispute arose from the imposition of a penalty on the assessee for falsely claiming input tax credit related to purchases of iron and steel. The Deputy Commissioner, based on a survey, issued a penalty notice which was later set aside by the Joint Commissioner. However, the Tribunal overturned the decision, upholding the penalty. The Deputy Commissioner noted the lack of evidence for the purchases from the selling dealer. In contrast, the first appellate authority considered tax invoices and other evidence, concluding that the penalty was unjustified as the revisionist was unaware of the selling dealer's registration status. The Tribunal upheld the penalty solely based on the selling dealer not being engaged in the iron and steel business, disregarding the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal failed to consider crucial evidence like tax invoices and transportation bills submitted by the assessee before the first appellate authority. The Court emphasized the legal significance of the terms "false" and "fraudulent" in such cases, highlighting the importance of verifying the submitted documents to determine the validity of the input tax credit claim. The Court found that the Tribunal overlooked essential evidence, necessitating a remand of the matter for a fresh decision. In conclusion, the Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the case for reconsideration in light of the evidence and observations provided.
|
