9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 27(2) of the said Act stating that the other end dealers have not reported sales turnover. Even in this regard, there is no discussion as to how such an issue was taken up by the respondent for consideration and there is no material borne out even in the show cause notices. Therefore, the proposal to reverse the input tax credit under Section 27(2) of the said Act is also erroneous and not sustainable. With regard to levy of penalty, admittedly there is no allegation that there is any escapement of taxable turnover and when the books were accepted by the Authority, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. Decided in favor of asessee. - Writ Petition Nos.21572 to 21577 of 2016, WMP.Nos.18450 to 18455 of 2016 - - - Dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court with regard to both the issues. Apart from the above two issues, there was a proposal to levy penalty under Section 27(4) of the Act. With regard to this proposal, the petitioner stated that there is no escapement of taxable turnover and that when the returns based on accounts were accepted by the Assessing Authority, penalty cannot be levied. In this regard also, the petitioner referred to the decisions of this Court. 5. However, the respondent, in a most cryptic and arbitrary manner, did not discuss any of the objections pointed out by the petitioner nor referred to the decisions relied upon nor stated as to how those decisions are not applicable. This is a classical case that apart from the action of the respondent being arb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was issued seeking to withdraw the relief on the ground that its dealer had not reported the sales turnover and remitted tax and an order was passed, withdrawing the relief granted and levying penalty. While considering the said 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition, it was held that at the time of filing the self-assessment return under Section 22(2), the petitioner-dealer had followed Rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, and therefore, could not be said to have wrongly availed 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 prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
