9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es that the tax due on such purchase has been paid by him in the manner prescribed and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment was made. The pre-revision notices and the orders clearly stated that the petitioner-dealer had paid the tax to the selling dealer. If that be the case, it was held that the petitioner's case therein squarely fell under the proviso to Section 19 (1) of the Act. The liability had to be fastened on the selling dealer and not on the petitioner-dealer which had shown proof of payment of tax on purchases made. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Writ Petition Nos. 305 to 308 of 2016, W.M.P.Nos.194 to 201 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2016 - The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam For the Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. On receipt of the show cause notice for all the four years, the petitioner appeared in person before the Assessing Officer, and explained that they have claimed ITC on the basis of purchased bills, and requested the Officer to verify the Annexure II of the sellers and to drop proceedings. The respondent, however, did not accept the explanation given by the petitioner, and passed the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the ITC could not have been reversed based on website reports, and this has been held to be illegal, in several decisions. To buttress the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of (Shanti K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, it was held that the circular issued by the Commissioner 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. Revenue in the said case did not deny, as a matter of fact, that the assessees 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, the Revenue could not deny the claim of the assessee. Going by Rule10(2) of TN Vat Rules read along with se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed of input tax credit wrongly. Section 19 (1) states that input-tax credit can be claimed by a registered dealer, if he establishes that the tax due on such purchase has been paid by him in the manner prescribed and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment was made. The pre-revision notices and the orders clearly stated that the petitioner-dealer had paid the tax to the selling dealer. If that be the case, it was held that the petitioner's case therein squarely fell under the proviso to Section 19 (1) of the Act. Further, it was another matter that the selling dealer had not paid the collected tax. The liability had to be fastened on the selling dealer and not on the petitioner-dealer which had shown proof of payment of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
