2019 (4) TMI 4 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Disallowance/reversal of input tax credit - premises found to be closed - Registration of the said firm was cancelled - Held that - It is an admitted case that registration of the selling dealer M/s Shrey Import and Export, Ghaziabad was cancelled subsequent to SIB survey made on 29.5.2014 and all the transactions have been made prior to cancellation of registration, as such, no sale or purchase was affected by unregistered dealer - also, both First Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal did not consider the fact that the transactions were made through banking channel and no finding was recorded either by First Appellate Authority or by Tribunal to that extent. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 6.2.2019 only reiterates the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and does not record its finding regarding the purchases made by assessee firm through banking channels from the selling dealers - the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to record fresh finding in regard to the payment so made by assessee through banking channel - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over input tax credit on resin purchased from a cancelled dealer. Allegations of non-genuine transactions and lack of payment evidence through banking channels.

Analysis:
The case involves a revisionist, a company dealing in PVC pipes, facing a tax dispute for the Assessment Year 2013-14 related to resin purchases from a dealer whose registration was later cancelled. The revisionist claimed input tax credit on the purchases, but a notice was issued for disallowance. The assessing authority rejected the revisionist's reply, leading to an assessment in 2018. The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, highlighting payments made to another firm, not the dealer. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal, prompting the revisionist to challenge the decision.

The revisionist argued that all payments were made through banking channels to the registered dealer, emphasizing the routine practice of remitting payments to third parties. They cited relevant judgments to support their case. The revisionist contended that the cancellation of the dealer's registration should not affect the credit when purchases were made against tax invoices and through banking channels. However, the opposing counsel argued that no payments were made via banking channels and questioned the legitimacy of the dealer.

The Court noted that all transactions occurred before the dealer's registration cancellation, ensuring no sales were affected post-cancellation. It criticized the lower authorities for not considering transactions through banking channels and failing to clarify payment modes. The Court rejected the argument of the dealer being a sham firm, as the registration was cancelled by the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, directing a fresh finding on payments through banking channels.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the revision to the extent of remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for a detailed examination of payments made by the assessee through banking channels, emphasizing the importance of proper findings in such tax disputes.