9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing to disallow the Input Tax Credit for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 only for the reason that the selling dealers have not filed their returns and have not paid the tax, which was collected from the petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the petitioner is before this Court. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on two grounds, the impugned notices are unsustainable. Firstly, the impugned notices themselves are without jurisdiction as the allegation is that the petitioner has breached the provisions of TNVAT Act, when admittedly the sellers have done the same and hence any proceedings against the petitioner/buyer is clearly unsustainable and bad for want of jurisdiction. Secondly, the impugned notices are contrary to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court and hence they are liable to be set aside. 5. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:- (i) A decision of this Court in the case of Tvl.Raymix Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Chief Accountant S.M.Sekar vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), The Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... absence of documents proving that the selling dealers are not annual return filers and they are filing monthly return in Form I and paid tax dues to the Government along with the acknowledgment obtained either online or assessment Circle, the objections are over-ruled and confirmed the proposal." 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the documents available on record. 6. Having considered the submission made by both sides, more particularly paragraphs 8 and 9 of the decision, which is extracted supra, I am of the view that the writ petition has to be allowed and the the alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the writ petition". (ii) A decision this Court in the case of Althaf Shoes Pvt Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in ([2012] 50 VST 179), wherein this Court has held as follows:- ".....Going by the abovesaid rule and read along with section 19(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 made it clear that so long as the purchasing dealer had complied with the requirements as given under rule 10(2), the clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner clearly states that so long as the vendor is found to be a registered dealer on the files of the Revenue, the claim of the assessee for refund could not be rejected nor delayed. As already pointed out, the Revenue does not deny, as a matter of fact, that the assessee's vendors are all registered dealers on the files of the Revenue and the assessee had also given the TIN number of these vendors. When such particulars are available, it is for the Revenue to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not remitted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, I do not think that the Revenue could deny the claim of the assessee." 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) also does not dispute the legal position. Since the impugned assessment order is only with regard to the reversal of Input Tax Credit, that too, solely based upon the verification with regard to the vendor, the same could not have been done. In the light of the decision referred supra and for all the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. Consequently, the connect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e we part with this case, we would like to impress upon the respondent authorities that before issuance of show cause notices, the Revenue must carefully take into consideration the settled law which has been crystallised by a series of judgments of this Court. The Revenue must make serious endeavour to ensure that all those who ought to pay excise duty must pay but in the process the Revenue must refrain from sending of indiscriminate show cause notices without proper application of mind. There is absolutely imperative to curb unnecessary and avoidable litigation in courts leading to unnecessary harassment and waste of time of all concerned including Tribunals and courts". (vi) paragraph No.31 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Vicco Laboratories reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270, which reads as follows:- "31 Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of certiorari. It is incomprehensible to think that a quasi-judicial authority like the I.T.O. can erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and thereafter proceed to impose a levy on a citizen..." 6. The decisions quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be applicable to the facts of this case, more particularly, the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 13 SCC 270 (Union of India vs. Vicco Laboratories). From the observations made in the said decision, it is clear that interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction would not suffice and it should be prima facie established to be so. Further, where only factual adjudication is necessary, interference should not be done by the Courts. In the case on hand, it is only a show cause notice. It may or may not be correct that for breach of the provisions of the sellers, action should be initiated only against those persons or against the petitioner. But it is for the petitioner to submit his explanation before the authority concerned to the show cause notices and if the same is establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
