9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same to the respondent - Decision in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies [2013 (4) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. (MD) No. 16059 of 2015, M. P. (MD). No. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2015 - R. Subbiah, J. For the Appellant : Mr. T Bashyam For the Respondent : Mr. R Karthikeyan Government Adv ORDER This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in TIN/33645701933/13-14, dated 05.06.2015 and quash the same. By the said order, the respondent has revised the assessment for the year 2013-2014 under Section 27 of TNVAT Act 2006. 2. The case of the petitioner firm is that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vail Input Tax Credit. It is further averred that the consignor (seller) failed to report the same in Annexure II of his return. It is not the fault of the buyer. Inspite of the said fact, the impugned order has been assessed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated earlier. 5. To back his averment, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced an unreported order made in W.P.(MD).No.2036 to 2038 of 2013, Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct), dated 29.01.2013, to state that in an identical case, this Court has allowed the claim of the petitioner therein. 6. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed on 05.06 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon by the petitioner cited supra is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the said judgment, in paragraph No.9, it has been held as follows:- 9. Sub-Section(16) of Section 19 states that the Input Tax Credit availed is provisional. It, however, does not empower the authority to revoke the input tax credit availed on a plea that the selling dealer has not paid the tax. It only relates to incorrect, incomplete or improper claim of Input Tax Credit by the dealer. It is not so in these cases. In the present case, the petitioner-dealer, admittedly, has paid the tax to the selling dealer and claimed Input Tax Credit and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment was made. Even the pre-revision notices and the orders under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
