9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proportionate ITC due for refund on zero rated sale. It is seen that this formula adopted by the assessing officer has been done for the first time and such formula was not adopted while issuing show-cause notice dated June 19, 2014. Therefore, if only the dealer had been put on notice referring proportionate ITC due for refund on zero rated sale and proposing to calculate, then only, the dealer would be in a position to submit his objections. If show-cause notice does not disclose the basis to such calculation, then, the dealer would not be in a position to know what is passing in the minds of the assessing officer and that is the reason the dealer would not object to reverse the proposal effectively. Therefore, the resultant consequence w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of goods in the State. Therefore, the assessing officer while dealing with second issue regarding applicability of section 19(2) did not assign any reasons. Therefore, the impugned order is not valid. - Matter remanded back X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the petitioner has clearly explained as regards the closing input-tax credit balance during the month from November 2013 onwards. In this regard, reference was made in paragraphs 6.2 to 6.10 of the Explanation with regard to proposal to reverse the ITC under section 19(2) of the Act. The petitioner pointed out that the demand is purely on account of the amendment to section 19(2) by Amending Act 28 of 2013 and sought to justify as to how the said amendment would not affect the petitioner, as they are manufacturers of goods within the State and the goods were purchased from registered dealers which are for the purpose of use in the manufacture within the State; consequently, clause (ii) of section 19(2) of the Act, i.e., inp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner at the time of proposal dated June 19, 2014. Hence, this court is satisfied that the impugned order suffers from serious procedural infirmity and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. So far as the second issue with regard to proposal of ITC under section 19(2) of the Act, the assessing officer did not advert into any of the objections raised except to state that as per section 19(2)(v), the reversal was proposed as per the amended section; as per the section, there is no exception for manufacturer. The petitioner in their objection/reply dated August 7, 2014 elaborately dealt with the issue relating to section 19(2)(v) and the petitioner stated that the said provision was not attracted as the Legislature ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
