9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the HVAT Act") against the orders dated 29.4.2014, 10.9.2012 and 28.2.2008, Annexures A.3, A.2 and A.1 passed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of input tax credit under section 8 of HVAT Act, 2003? ii) Whether before disallowing the input tax credit, the Assessing authority ought to have conducted the complete enquiry as prescribed under Section 8? iii) Whether the appellant should have been allowed to produce certificate in Form C4 in support of its claim of input tax credit in case the assessing authority has any doubt about invoice produced by the appellant?" 4. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the VATAP No.41 of 2015 may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is proprietorship concern. It is a dealer registered under the HVAT Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). It has been filing the prescribed quarterly returns and discharging its tax obligations in accordance therewith. It is engaged in the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of section 8;" Section 8(2) "8(2) A tax invoice issued to a VAT dealer showing the tax charged to him on the sale of invoiced goods shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), be sufficient proof of the tax paid on such goods for the purpose of sub-section (1)." Section 28(2) "28(2) Every dealer required to furnish returns under subsection (2) of section 14 shall, - (a) in respect of every sale of goods, effected by him (i) to any dealer; (ii) to any other person on credit; (iii) to any other person on cash, where the sale price of the goods exceed one hundred rupees or such other amount not exceeding five hundred rupees, as may be prescribed, compulsorily, otherwise, on demand by such person, issue to the purchaser, where he is a VAT dealer to whom the goods are sold for resale by him or for use by him in manufacture or processing of goods for sale, a tax invoice, otherwise a retail/other sale invoice, - (A) in the case of specific or ascertained goods, at the time the contract of sale is made; and (B) in the case of unascertained or future goods, at the time of their appropriation to the contract of sale; showing the prescribed particulars: Provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said provisions shows that under Rule 54(3) of the HVAT Rules, the buyer is required to produce the tax invoice, its name and TIN number entered on it. However, the question would be whether the purchaser can be penalized where the seller does not comply with the same. In our opinion, the answer would be in the negative. The non mentioning of the buyer's name or TIN number as it is issued by the seller cannot be taken to be fatal against the buyer and benefit of input tax credit declined to the buyer on that basis alone. The purpose of incorporating Rule 54 (3) of he HVAT Rules is to safeguard the interest of the revenue from non-genuine transactions. It is procedural in nature and does not confer any substantive right. In the event of nonmentioning of the name and TIN No. of the buyer, a heavy onus is cast on the said dealer to produce material to discharge the said onus by producing other sufficient evidence to show that the transaction was genuine and it had made payment of VAT to the seller. Moreover, it is not within the control of the purchaser to ensure that the tax invoice contains his name and TIN No. as it is issued by the seller. Unless a mandatory duty is cast on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed by another person by establishing that the imported duty paid goods have been received as inputs and that the importer has not taken credit of that duty. In the present case, it is established that the duty paid goods are received as inputs, however, the credit is denied on the ground that the Bill of entry is not endorsed in the name of the appellant. Rule 57G does not require that for taking credit of duty, the bill of entry should be endorsed in the name of the claimant. Counsel for the revenue could not point out any provision of law in the Act or the Rules regarding the endorsement of bills of entry. In the absence of any provision regarding endorsement on the bill of entry, the credit of duty cannot be denied on the ground that the bill of entry is not endorsed in the name of the claimant. As stated here above, what is required to be established for taking credit of duty is that the goods used as inputs are duty paid and that the credit of duty paid on the said goods has not been taken. In the facts of the present case, the evidence on record i.e. the bills of entry together with the certificates issued by excise authorities at Surat and Goa clearly show that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
