9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. therefore, by referring the decision of this court in the case of Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) [2011 (10) TMI 567 - Madras High Court] and for other reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the place of business of the petitioner on 27.12.2013, 08.01.2014 and 18.01.2014 and certain defects were pointed out. Based on the said inspection, the first respondent issued a notice dated 28.11.2014 proposing to revise the assessment under Section 27 r/w 19(16) of the Act, 2006 and also proposing to levy penalty on the wrong claim of input tax under Section 27(4) of the Act. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 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 pertains to Input Tax Credit, has held as follows: As already pointed out, the circular issued by the Commissioner clearly states that so long as the vendor is found to be a registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olely 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 connected miscellaneous petition is closed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
