2016 (1) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the reason that when admittedly the petitioner firm has paid the tax, he cannot be made liable for the failure on the part of the seller to report the same to the respondent. - Decided in favour of assessee.
R. Subbiah, J. For the Appellant : Mr B Rooban for M/s R V Manikandan Associates 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 proceedings of the second respondent in TIN/33915681560/2013-14, dated 10.08.2015 and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is a partnership concern carrying on business in the name and style of 'Sri Lakshmi Textiles' dealing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the said dealers showing the collection of taxes from the petitioner and the copies of the monthly returns filed. 4. Despite the said fact, the second respondent has passed the impugned assessment order dated 10.08.2015 by confirming his proposal vide notice dated 28.07.2015. Though valid objections have been filed by way of explanation, the respondent has simply rejected the same by passing the impugned order. Further, the second respondent himself has admitted that the claim of Input Tax Credit is covered by valid tax invoices as required under Rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules and when it is so, he cannot compel the petitioner to produce annexure II of the other end dealer which can be easily verified by him through .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terials available on record. 8. A perusal of the records would show that at the time of purchasing the goods, admittedly, the petitioner has paid the tax to the seller, which is not under dispute. The reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner firm is denied Input Tax Credit just because the dealer/seller has failed to report the same before the respondents. The reason adduced by the respondent is unacceptable for the reason that when admittedly the petitioner firm has paid the tax, he cannot be made liable for the failure on the part of the seller to report the same to the respondent. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner cited supra is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the case of Sri Vinayaga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X