9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring date was also given - the impugned orders though have been passed after giving an opportunity of two weeks time to the petitioner, can be interfered with by this Court, because, the item-wise details between Annexures I and II for the alleged discrepancy since has not been submitted or furnished by the department and the petitioner is now able to collect all the details to give a suitable defence or reply to the department to satisfy themselves that there is no discrepancy between Annexures I and II, which is the very basis for reversal of ITC under Section 19(16), this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned orders - impugned order quashed - matter remitted for reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(MD)No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of personal hearing was given to the petitioner for personal hearing on 28.06.2016. 5.Even though the notices for reversal were issued where 15 days time was given and an opportunity of personal hearing was also fixed to the petitioner, within the said time stipulated by the respondent in the said notices dated 23.05.2016, the petitioner has not responded. However, belatedly on 04.11.2016, the petitioner had submitted a request to the respondent, seeking further time to produce the relevant records. Thereafter, the present impugned orders dated 30.11.2016 were passed by the respondent for each assessment year, whereby the proposal was confirmed. 6.In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that if at all an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in order to collect the details from the sellers, the petitioner had sought for time and within the two weeks time they sought for, which was given subsequently, the petitioner could not collect the details. When details have been collected by the petitioner and after consolidating the same when the petitioner was about to present the same before the respondent authority, the impugned orders have been passed, whereby, the proposal has been confirmed. If an opportunity is given to the petitioner with the assistance of the department officials to verify each and every transaction, where the alleged discrepancy is found by the department between Annexures I and II, certainly, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ''The input tax credit availed by any registered dealer shall be only provisional and the assessing authority is empowered to revoke the same if it appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect, incomplete or otherwise not in order.'' 10.By invoking the said power, notice was issued where 15 days time was given to respond and also a date was fixed for personal hearing. In spite of opportunity was given including personal hearing, the same was not utilised by the petitioner. Subsequently, only in the month of November 2016, the petitioner had responded by saying that the petitioner wanted further two weeks time to file a detailed reply. Even the said two weeks time given by the department was not utilised by the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to respond. According to the respondents, the said two weeks time was given and only thereafter, the present impugned orders were passed. 14.This Court has considered the said facts and also the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the notices dated 23.05.2016, it is merely stated that on verification of the web report there is a discrepancy between the entries of Annexures I and II. Though Annexures I and II have been separately given along with the notices, the same have not been produced by the petitioner before this Court. Assuming that Annexures I and II contain the transactions, there is no proof on the part of the respondent to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erfered with by this Court, because, the item-wise details between Annexures I and II for the alleged discrepancy since has not been submitted or furnished by the department and the petitioner is now able to collect all the details to give a suitable defence or reply to the department to satisfy themselves that there is no discrepancy between Annexures I and II, which is the very basis for reversal of ITC under Section 19(16), this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 16.Resultantly, the following orders are passed. (i) the impugned orders are quashed. (ii) the matter is remitted back to the respondent for re-consideration. At the process of re-consideration, the respondent shall give a notice to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
