9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the selling dealer can have no effect on the person who acted upon the strength of the registration certificate when it was in force. Selling dealer has not paid taxes - Held that: - This issue was considered by this Court in the case of SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VADAPALANI-I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [2013 (4) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that Sub-section (16) of Section 19 states that the input tax credit availed is provisional. It, however, does not empower the authority to revoke the input tax credit availed on a plea that the selling dealer has not paid the tax. It only relates to incorrect, incomplete or improper claim of input tax credit by the dealer. Belated submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Input Tax Credit which has been reversed by the respondent, on the ground that the sellers have not paid taxes or their registration certificates have been cancelled even prior to the date when the petitioner effected purchases, is justified and the second issue would be on the ground that the petitioner had belatedly submitted Form-W. With regard to the other issues, the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that the petitioner will pay the taxes as quantified in the impugned orders. Thus, this Court is testing the correctness of the impugned orders only on the above two issues raised. 4. With regard to the first issue, as to whether the purchasing dealers can be held liable for non-payment of tax by the sellin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed the goods either for own use or for further sale. At the time when the sale was made, the selling dealers had valid registration certificates and the subsequent cancellation cannot nullify the benefit that the petitioners/assesses availed of based on valid documents. 5. The other issue which has been raised by the respondent for reversal of Input Tax Credit is on the ground that the selling dealer has not paid taxes. This issue was considered by this Court in the case of SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VADAPALANI-I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [(2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad)], which has been followed by this Court in INFINITI WHOLESALE LIMITED v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) KOYAMBEDU ASSESSMENT CIRCLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which had shown proof of payment of tax on purchases made. The orders were thus set-aside. Thus, the first issue raised in these Writ Petitions is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Division Bench decisions of this Court and the impugned orders to that extent are liable to be set aside. 6.The second aspect with regard to the belated submission of Form-W, is concerned, this Court has taken into consideration the Circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in Circular No.22/2014 dated 12.05.2014, that even though Statutory Forms such as Form-W are submitted belatedly, that by itself will not be the reason to reject the same. Therefore, to that extent, the respondent was not justified in outrightly rejecting the Form-W, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
