2017 (9) TMI 130 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Principles of Natural justice - input tax credit - movement of goods - Held that - the respondent has disbelieved the lorry receipts which were produced by the petitioners and to that extent, the petitioners did not have an opportunity to contest the said finding by producing their evidence or cross-examining the parties whose cases were referred to by the Assessing Officer to disbelieve the receipts. In such circumstances, the respondent ought to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, before completing the assessment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the assessment should be redone - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Input tax credit claimed on purchase of cotton yarn
- Rejection of objections by petitioners
- Requirement to prove movement of goods for availing input tax credit
- Sufficiency of documents to prove eligibility for input tax credit
- Lack of opportunity for personal hearing before assessment

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras involved multiple Writ Petitions where registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 claimed input tax credit on the purchase of cotton yarn. The petitioners received notices alleging that the selling dealers had not filed returns or paid due taxes, leading to doubts about the genuineness of transactions. The petitioners raised objections, requesting the opportunity to cross-examine sellers and buyers. The Court considered previous decisions highlighting that petitioners should not be penalized for faults of selling dealers.

The respondent rejected the petitioners' explanations, emphasizing the need for proof of movement of goods and questioning the authenticity of lorry vouchers and bank transactions. The Court noted that the respondent did not provide a personal hearing despite objections, leading to a lack of opportunity for the petitioners to contest findings or present evidence. The judgment referenced a similar case where the matter was remanded for reassessment, indicating inconsistencies in the assessment process.

The Court identified two key issues for consideration: the statutory requirement for proving the movement of goods to claim input tax credit and the sufficiency of documents provided by petitioners to establish eligibility for the credit. It was observed that the petitioners were not given a fair chance to contest the disbelieved lorry receipts or cross-examine relevant parties. Consequently, the assessment was deemed flawed, and the Court ordered a redo of the assessment, directing the petitioners to present materials supporting the genuineness of transactions within 15 days.

In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioners were instructed to provide necessary documents to prove the authenticity of transactions, and a new assessment was to be conducted in compliance with the law. No costs were imposed, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.