9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent and with the consent of either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner, who is the registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, (TNVAT Act), has challenged the assessment orders for the years 2010-11 and 2013-14. Notices were issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2015, stating that on verification of the monthly returns in annexure I, it revealed that the petitioner has effected local purchases from registration cancelled dealers and accordingly, the respondent proposed to reverse the ITC claimed by the petitioner. In fact, these notices dated 27.10.2015, were issued to the petitioner after the earlier Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer. 4. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer to the two decisions of this Court viz.(i) ALTHAF SHOES (P) LTD., v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VALLUVARKOTTAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE,CHENNAI [(2012) 50 VST 179 (Mad) and (ii) SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VADAPALANI-I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [(2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad)]. 5.In the case of ALTHAF SHOES (P) LTD., cited supra, the petitioner was a dealer and exporter of finished leather and other products, who claimed refund of ITC under Section 18 (2) of the VAT Act in respect of the exports made. Though the refund was granted, subsequently notice was issued seeking to withdraw the relief on the ground that its dealer had not reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repugnant in the said circular issued by the Commissioner as a head of the Department as regards the provisions of the Act on input-tax credit claim. Holding so, allowed the writ petition and in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani-1, Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in (2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad), the petitioner was dealer in lubricants, purchasing lubricants from a registered dealer. On inspection, it was found that the vendor / dealer had not filed monthly returns nor paid tax to the Department. Though the petitioner had paid tax to the selling dealer, revision notice was issued proposing that the ITC should be reversed on the failure of the selling dealer in paying the tax. Allowing the said writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et the petitioner therein had taken credit. After following the decisions in the case of ALTHAF SHOES (P) LTD., and in the case of SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES, this Court allowed the Writ Petition and held that the exercise of jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal. 7. The law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decisions have been reiterated by this Court repeatedly in several decisions, yet the Commercial Tax Department appear to have not taken note of the said legal position and the instant case is also one such cases, where the Assessing Officer abdicated his duties and failed to take into consideration the settled legal position. 8. Hence, for all the above reasons, the impugned orders are hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
