9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : -- ORDER Akil Kureshi, J. 1. In brief, the facts are that the appellant-assessee has appealed against an assessment order passed by the Value Added Tax Authority. Such appeal was pending before the Value Added Tax Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the appellant also prayed for waiver of predeposit. On such application, the Tribunal passed an order on 10.05.2012 directing the assessee to depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner's liability to pay the purchase tax. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that such a stand is contrary to various decisions of this Court as well as Supreme Court and more particularly in a recent judgement dated 5.11.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.14739/2012 in case of Meet Traders. Despite this, the Tribunal while admitting the appeal on the stay application provided that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id. He, therefore, contended that tax credit on such purchase could not be denied to the appellant. In this respect, he placed reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court dated 05.11.2012 passed in case of Meet Traders-Prop Kishor Babulal Shah Huf Vs. State of Gujarat and anr. (SCA 14739/2012). On the other hand, learned AGP, Mr. Gandhi, under instructions of Mr. V.M.Trivedi, Commercial T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e would not like to make any conclusive observations. However, we find a strong prima facie case in favour of the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when it is prima facie shown that the entire additional tax is raised on the ground of non-availability of credit pertaining to the purchases made from dealers whose registrations were cancelled subsequent to the purchases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
