9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his explanation/objections within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the respondent is not satisfied with the explanations, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being personally heard and put forth his submissions to clarify the same. - W.P. Nos. 8661 to 8663 of 2015 And M.P. Nos. 1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2015 - S. Vaidyanathan, J. For the Petitioner : Mohammed Shaffiq For Respondent : V. Haribabu ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), who took notice for the respondent. 2. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders of the respondent dated 19.12.2014. 3. The case of the petitioner Company is that they are engaged in the manufacture of Computers and peripherals and they are registered dealers and assessee on the file of the respondent. According to the petitioner Company, they filed monthly returns in compliance with the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the TNVAT Act ), discharging appropriate taxes within the prescribed time. According to the petitioner, the notices dated 19.12.2014, which were re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases. In the present case, the petitioner-dealer, admittedly, had paid the tax to the selling dealer and claimed input tax credit and that was accepted at the time when the selfassessment was made. Even the pre-revision notices and the orders under challenge fairly state that the petitioner-dealer had paid tax to the dealer. It is therefore, for the department to proceed against the selling dealer for recovery of tax in the manner known to law. The provision under which the present action has been initiated, namely invoking sub-section (16) of Section 19, does not appear to be correct on the admitted facts as above. All the revision orders revising the input tax credit on the admitted case of tax having been paid to the selling dealer, therefore, are found to be totally incorrect, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and Rules. As a result, all the orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has got alternative remedy to agitate the issue. He would further contend that the petitioner was given due opportunity and his objections were considered and the authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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. (iii) A decision of this Court in the case of M/s New Consolidated Construction Co. Ltd., vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Ayyanavaram Assessment Circle (W.P.No.6980 of 2015 dated 12.03.2015), wherein relying on the decision reported in (2012) 50 VST 179 (Mad) has held as follows:- 3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and that the same is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) reported in (2012) 50 VST 179 (Mad). In the said decision, this Court considering somewhat an identical situation, the only difference being in the said case it was pertaining to refund and in the instant case, it pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made. Even the prerevision notices and the orders under challenge fairly state that the petitioner-dealer had paid tax to the dealer. It is, therefore, for the Department to proceed against the selling dealer for recovery of tax in the manner known to law. The provision under which the present action has been initiated, namely, invoking sub-section (16) of Section 19, does not appear to be correct on the facts as above. All the revision orders revising the input-tax credit on the admitted case of tax having been paid to the selling dealer, therefore, are found to be totally incorrect, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT act and Rules. As a result, all the orders are liable to be set aside.. (v) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Poles Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in ([2006] 145 STC 0625), by referring to the series of Judgments of the Hon'be Supreme Court quashed the show cause notices impugned therein by holding that in view of the settled legal position the activity of the appellants of merely joining of three pipes, one with other, of different dimensions to obtain a desired length can by no stretch of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows:- 31........We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. If that be so, the notice issued by the authority signifying the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves would be without jurisdiction . (viii) paragraph No.3 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raza Textiles Ltd., vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur reported in (1973) 1 SCC 633, which reads as follows:- 3............The Appellate Bench appears to have been under the impression that the ITO was the sole judge of the fact whether the firm in question was resident or non resident. This conclusion is wholly wrong. No authority, much less a quasi-judicial authority, can confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding a jurisdictional fact wrongly. The question whether the jurisdictional fact has been rightly decided or not is a question that is open for examination by the High Court. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
