9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer/seller, he was registered under provisions of VAT Act and subsequently, his registration was cancelled – Therefore assesse cannot be deprived of his right of getting credit of input tax available under provisions of VAT Act – Supreme court in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company [1996 (2) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] observed that Whatever may be effect of retrospective cancellation upon selling dealer, it can have no effect upon any person who has acted upon strength of registration certificate when registration was current – Hence, cross objections allowed – Decided in favour of Assesse. - Tax Appeal No. 1321 of 2014, civil Application (OJ) No. 684 of 2014, Cross Objection No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, from whom the assessee had purchased the goods to the tune of ₹ 77,938/-. Since its registration was ab initio cancelled, the authority passed assessment order on 27.10.2010 and imposed tax to the tune of ₹ 73,797/- + interest and penalty. The said decision was challenged by the assessee by way of filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Appeal 2, Ahmedabad. The said appeal was partly allowed and the penalty was reduced from ₹ 2,21,392 to ₹ 1,84,493 by the judgment and order dated 21.12.2011. The assessee challenged the said decision before the Tribunal by way of preferring Second Appeal No.22 of 2012. The said appeal came to be partly allowed. Hence, this appeal. 5. Ms. Maithili Meh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aler who was a registered dealer and, therefore, subsequent events with regard to cancellation of registration of the said seller would not disentitle the assessee for claiming the benefit. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company, 109 STC 439 and submitted that the cross-objections may be allowed. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed the cross objections and submitted that since the registration of the seller is cancelled, he would not be entitled for any benefit. 10. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. 11. It is an undisputed fact that when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
