9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of remand. - W.P.Nos.29083 of 2015 And M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2020 - Mr. Justice C. Saravanan For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar For the Respondents : Mr.R.Swarnavel Government Advocate (T) ORDER The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was regular in paying tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. During the period in dispute i.e, assessment year 2009-2010, the petitioner had availed input tax credit under the provisions of Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. 2.A notice dated 21.06.2013 was issued to the petitioner which called upon the petitioner to reverse input tax credit availed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no longer res integra on merits and that it is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Vanayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani-I, Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad) wherein after considering the provisions of TNVAT Act 2006 and TNVAT Rules 2007 the Court held as under :- Therefore, it cannot be said that input-tax credit was wrongly availed. The provision of section 19(1) clearly states that input-tax credit can be claimed by the registered dealer, provided if the registered dealer establishes that the tax due on such purchase has been paid by him in the manner prescribed. The prerevision notices and the order clearly stated in paragraph 3 that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent action has been initiated, namely invoking sub-section (16) of section 19, does not appear to be correct on the admitted facts as above. All the revision orders revising the input-tax credit on the admitted case of tax having been paid to the selling dealer, therefore, are found to be totally incorrect, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and Rules. As a result, all the orders are liable to the set aside. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the above decision has been further affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner(CT), Presently Thiruverkadu Assessment Circle, Kolathur, Chennai Vs.Infiniti Wholesale Ltd reported in [2017] 99 VST 341 (Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
