2017 (7) TMI 266 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reversal of CENVAT credit - TIN number of the petitioner was wrongly shown by the seller - penalty - Held that - the impugned order was passed only on the reason that the wrong TIN number was shown, that too by oversight, the petitioner should be given one more opportunity for producing the original Registration Certificate in order to substantiate their claim - matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order reversing Input Tax Credit and levying penalty under section 27(2) and 27(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 due to incorrect TIN number provided by the seller.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent, which reversed the Input Tax Credit of ?99,854 and imposed a penalty under section 27(2) and 27(4)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The dispute arose from the incorrect TIN number provided by the seller, leading to the reversal of credit. The petitioner contended that the mistake was unintentional and due to oversight, as the correct TIN number could be verified from the Registration Certificate. The respondent argued that the mistake was repeated in multiple transactions, justifying the reversal of credit. The court noted that the impugned order was solely based on the incorrect TIN number, without any malafide intention on the petitioner's part.

The court heard arguments from both sides and considered the circumstances. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the unintentional nature of the mistake and the availability of the correct TIN in the Registration Certificate for verification. The Government Advocate for the respondent stated that if the petitioner provides the original Registration Certificate with the correct TIN, fresh orders would be considered. After evaluating the facts, the court decided to grant the petitioner another opportunity to present the original Registration Certificate to substantiate their claim.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh orders, with the directive to provide a hearing to the petitioner and examine the original Registration Certificate within four weeks. No costs were awarded in the case, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.