2016 (10) TMI 855 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reversal of input tax credit - non production of documents under Section 19(13) of the TNVAT Act - Held that - the second respondent erroneously reversed the input tax credit on the ground of lack of clarity in the documents produced. If the second respondent was satisfied with the very same documents while considering the issue of cross-verification, this Court is at a loss to understand as to how they would not be relevant for consideration while deciding the issue of reversal of credit. Even assuming that the registration certificates were cancelled retrospectively, that would not have any impact on the petitioner s right to claim input tax credit, as, admittedly, the petitioner had produced the original tax invoices and showed that the sale price includes VAT, that they discharged their liability and that payments were effected through bank transactions. That apart, the second respondent, while completing the assessment, stated that in the absence of clarity, the petitioner s contention is not acceptable. This finding lacks clarity - If the second respondent was of the view that there was lack of clarity, nothing prevented the second respondent from calling upon the dealer to appear in person and clarify the issues arising out of the documents, which they had submitted. In such circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the manner, in which, the impugned assessment orders have been passed, is not sustainable in law. Writ petitions disposed off - finding given by the second respondent on the issue relating to reversal of the input tax credit for non production of documents under Section 19(13) of the TNVAT Act, is set aside - decided partly in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under TNVAT Act for multiple assessment years based on VAT audit findings and pre-revision notices focusing on tax due on sale difference, input tax credit reversal, and cross verification.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under TNVAT Act and CST Act, challenged assessment orders for various years post a VAT audit. The pre-revision notices highlighted three issues: tax due on sale difference, input tax credit reversal for non-production of documents, and cross verification. The petitioner accepted the tax due proposal and resolved the cross verification issue by providing satisfactory details of purchases from other dealers. The main contention remained the reversal of input tax credit for non-production of documents under Section 19(13) of the TNVAT Act.

The petitioner argued that all purchases were supported by original tax invoices, duly reflected in accounts and returns, with no discrepancies found during the VAT audit. They requested detailed purchase information to reconcile with sellers. The petitioner also disputed claims of purchases from registration-cancelled dealers, asserting transactions with registered dealers and VAT payments through bank transactions, citing legal precedents to support their stance.

The second respondent, while passing impugned orders, insisted that input tax credit is only allowable if tax is remitted to the government at the other end, dismissing petitioner's objections as lacking clarity. However, the High Court found the assessment unsustainable, noting that details provided were sufficient for cross verification but deemed insufficient for input tax credit reversal, highlighting an inconsistency in the respondent's approach.

Regarding purchases from registration-cancelled dealers, the Court emphasized that retrospective cancellations did not impact the petitioner's right to claim input tax credit, especially when supported by valid invoices and evidence of VAT payments. The Court criticized the lack of clarity in the respondent's findings and suggested a personal hearing to clarify issues and reconsider the assessment in line with established legal principles, including the decision in the Jinsasan Distributors case.

Consequently, the Court partly allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the input tax credit reversal finding and directing the second respondent to reassess while adhering to legal precedents and providing a fair opportunity for clarification. The Court emphasized the importance of considering established legal principles and ensuring procedural fairness in assessments.