9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raising the following questions of law: (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii)Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that input tax credit had to be reversed invoking Section 19(9)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, when there is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the shortage was due to loss? (iii)Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the shortage due to weight difference comes under the category of loss of goods as contemplated under Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act? (iv)Whether the Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, is correct in ignoring the fact that the shortage in quantity was not found at the time of each pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit availed by the dealer. The dealer submitted its objections stating that the small difference in weighment is due to different weigh bridges and weighing machines, which is common in their trade and, therefore, the input tax credit availed by the dealer should not be reversed. 2.3. The above said objection was overruled by the Original Authority placing reliance on Section 19(9)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the TNVAT Act. The Original Authority held that the reason given by the dealer for shortage is routine, without factual evidence, and placing reliance on Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, he held that input lost while in storage also becomes ineligible for input tax credit. 2.4. The dealer preferred appeals against the assessment orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods shortage due to weight different also termed as 'loss'. Though Section 19(9)(ii)(iii) not applicable to the dealer, Section 19(9)(i) is applicable from the facts of the present case. The Tribunal is final fact finding Authority. From the facts of this case, the reversal of ITC is correct Under Section 19(a)(i) and not Under Section 9(9)(ii). But, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner simply discussed the Section 9(9)(ii) and come to the conclusion that the above Section is not applicable to this case. In the light of the above discussion, this Tribunal come to the conclusion that the reversal of ITR is correct and the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner is not correct. Hence, the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inputs destroyed in fire accident or lost while in storage even before use in the manufacture of final products. (emphasis supplied) 7. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner is a dealer. Therefore, Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner and it is Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act that will be applicable. We are not inclined to accept the technical plea of the petitioner that a wrong provision, namely, Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, has been quoted instead of Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act, as the facts clearly establish that it is a case which falls under Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act, which the Original Authority has failed to properly apply its mind. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
