9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal submissions. Hence, I have no other option except to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on merits. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P.Nos.2929 to 2932 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2015 - S. Vaidyanathan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Ramanathan For the Respondent : Mr. Cibi Vishnu, AGP(T) ORDER Mr.Cibi Vishnu, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes notice for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has come forward with these writ petitions, challenging the orders of the respondent dated 28.08.2014 and also his consequential proceedings dated 09.01.2015. 3. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r's vendors were all registered dealers on the file of the department and the same was available with the department and the department ought to have taken action against the vendors for not remitting the tax collected by them. Without doing so, the department could not deny the request made by the petitioner. 6. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in [2012] 50 VST 179 (Mad), wherein it is held as follows:- ... The mere fact that the Department had not made an assessment on the dealer's vendor, per se, could not stand in the way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment was made. The pre-revision notices and the orders clearly stated that the petitioner-dealer had paid the tax to the selling dealer. If that be the case, the petitioner's case squarely fell under the proviso to section 19(1) of the Act. It was another matter that the selling dealer had not paid the collected tax. The liability had to be fastened on the selling dealer and not on the petitioner-dealer which had shown proof of payment of tax on purchases made. The orders were liable to be set aside . so also the decision rendered by this Court in W.P.Nos.25996 to 25998 of 2014 dated 17.10.2014, wherein this Court, by referring the above two decisions, in paragraph Nos.5 and 6, has held as follows:- 5.This Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the TIN number of these vendors. When such particulars were available, it was for the Department to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not remitted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, the Department could not deny the claim of the petitioner. 6.In the light of the above decision, the observation made by the respondent in the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. Further in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani-I Asssessment Circle, Chennai and Another reported in (2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad), this Court held that there is no power with the assessing authority to revoke input-tax credit on ground selling dealer has not paid tax and it was held that at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute the factual legal submissions. Hence, I have no other option except to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on merits. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner undertakes to produce Annexure II duly attested by the seller before the authority, if sufficient time is granted. 11. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the authority concerned for passing appropriate orders afresh on merits and in accordance with law. 12. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to appear in person and produce the documents required by the respondent d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
