9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficials, that there is difference in the value of purchase and sales of scrap. The dealer had sold utensils and scrap, as first sale and paid tax to the department, after adjusting input credit. Upon analysing the evidence, there is a concurrent finding of fact, in favour of the dealer, which does not warrant reversal on the grounds raised. Revision dismissed - decided against Revenue. - T. C. (R). Nos. 32 and 33 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2018 - S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Hari Babu Additional Govt. Pleader (Taxes) ORDER ( Common Order of this Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Tax Case Revision Petitions are filed to revise the order, dated 18.09.2014, passed in S.T.A.No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished goods. (c) The appellants have purchased raw material both from other state, without ITC and local state with ITC and it cannot be imagined that all the raw materials have been converted into finished products before the day of inspection. (d) Both the utensils and the ss scrap are taxable in the hands of the appellants being the first seller. As seen from the inspection statement, neither any purchase suppression nor any sales suppression was found out and recorded. (e) What has been not recorded in the inspection statement cannot be a base for revision of assessment. (f) Moreover the report received from the Enforcement Wing lacks any logic in mooting out a turnover and reversal of ITC. The learned Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any purchase suppression nor any sales suppression was found out and recorded. Further there is no admission by the dealer in the sworn statement. So, without analyzing the records the Assessing Officer passed revised order. Admittedly the respondents purchased raw materials and manufactured the S.S.Utensils. The respondents sold the finished goods as well as scrap and collected tax and paid to Government with monthly returns. Further there is no stock discrepancy. Hence this Tribunal feels that the method adopted by the Assessing Officer is not acceptable. In view of the above discussion we come to the conclusion that the order of Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) is correct and there is no reason to interfere in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted the above proposal, at the time of inspection. 7. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have examined the proportion of finished goods and scrap, with reference to raw material purchased. He further submitted that during the above assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, out of the total purchase of 74968 kgs., and 141077 kgs., of raw materials, finished products generated only 49655 kgs., and 85716 kgs., respectively and the balance of 25313 kgs, being 34% of the total purchases and 56361 kgs., being 39% of the total purchases, relate to scrap, which according to him, are not possible, in this line of trade. 8. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) further submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shall be reversal of tax credit; or (ii)inputs destroyed in fire accident or lost while in storage even before use in the manufacture of final products. 11. A reading of the Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act makes it evident that no input tax credit shall be availed by a registered dealer for purchase of goods, if such goods are not sold because of any theft, loss or destruction, for any reason, including natural calamity, and if the dealer has already availed input tax credit against purchase of such goods, there shall be reversal of tax credit. Reversal of input tax credit has been done by the Original Authority, based on the surprise inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing officials, that there is difference in the value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
