9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer, they have taken over an existing business and their vendor had a valid registration with the respondent. Therefore, it is only a transition which required to be done so far as the concerned business. Probably, the verification aspect required to be done was with regard to the solvency of the petitioner and other related requirements. Condonation of delay - Held that: - though the registration certificate might have been despatched to the petitioner during April 2014, the petitioner was justified in seeking to file online return as the Department is insisting and compelling dealers to adopt the online procedure and discouraging the filing of manual returns. Therefore, even assuming there is a fault on the part of the dealer in not immediately filing the manual return, on account of the delay by the Department in activating the facility for filing e-return by giving the password, the delay in filing the manual return has to necessarily be condoned. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.5265 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.5584 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Thilagavathi for Mr.R.Gopinath For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput tax credit for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing W.P.No.3820 of 2015 which was dismissed by order dated 16.02.2015. The petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A.No.828 of 2015 and the Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment dated 15.02.2016 allowed the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer dated 14.01.2015 and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh finding with regard to the question as to whether the appellant was issued a certificate of registration within time and as to whether the appellant was prevented from filing online returns or manual returns, as the case may be. On such remand, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 23.12.2016 disallowing the claim of ITC and holding that the petitioner is liable to reverse the ITC claim for the year 2013-14 to the tune of ₹ 54,16,090/- and issued a demand dated 23.12.2016. This order dated 23.12.2016 and the consequential demand are impugned in this writ petition. 4.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the correctness of the impugned order by contending that admittedly as per the findings of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed an application for registration on 19.02.2014 and cannot state that the Department had delayed the issuance of the certificate of registration. The said certificate was issued within the time limit as prescribed under Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules with validation from the date of commencement of business. It is submitted that Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules emphasis that the registering authority shall give registration certificate within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application excluding the date of filing of the application while computing the time limit. The applicant having filed an application only on 19.02.2014 cannot attribute the delay on the part of the Department. Further, the failure on the part of the petitioner to file manual return for availing input tax credit was elaborately discussed in the proceedings dated 14.01.2015 and 23.12.2016. The petitioner having not taken efforts to file manual return and having done so only after issuance of notice from the Department during September 2014 will clearly show the inertness on the part of the petitioner. Even after the password was assigned, the dealers had not filed returns for the months of February and March 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion is whether they were given the password to enable them to file the return online only belatedly and the question as to whether the petitioner was not allowed to file manual returns which questions were not even gone into in the order passed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act. It was further pointed out that these questions were very crucial to the decision with regard to reversal of input tax credit. Thus, it was held that there is a clear non-application of mind to a very important fact by the Assessing Officer both in the original order and in the order passed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act and therefore, held that the petitioner need not be prevented to avail the revisional remedy under Section 54 of the TNVAT Act. After making such an observation and allowing the writ appeal, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh finding with regard to whether certificate of registration was given on time and whether the petitioner was prevented from filing online return or manual return. 8.Unfortunately, the respondent in the impugned order has not gone into the aspect as directed by the Division Bench. The petitioner would not be able to file a return electr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
