9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 the petitioner on the inputs purchased from seven different dealers for the reasons stated in the said notice. It is the case of the petitioner that when said notice was issued, the petitioner had already closed down on its business and therefore the said notice remained unserved on the petitioner. 3.According to the petitioner, in the year 2009-2010 there were a few changes in the Constitution of the petitioner's firm and therefore a Deed of Reconstitution of the petitioner's firm was signed on 27.08.2009 as a result of which, one of the partner K.Sundaramoorty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x 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 the petitioner herein had paid the tax to the selling dealer. If that be the case, the petitioner's case squarely falls under the proviso to section 19(1) of the TNVAT Act. That is availed of only by following rule 10(2). It is also not in dispute that the self-assessment has been made under section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act and therefore the petitioner was justified in claiming the input-tax credit. It is another matter that the selling dealer has not paid the collected tax and that liability has to be fastened on the selling dealer. It cannot be mulcted on the petitionerpurchasing dealer, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner(CT), Presently Thiruverkadu Assessment Circle, Kolathur, Chennai Vs.Infiniti Wholesale Ltd reported in [2017] 99 VST 341 (Mad). 8.Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the impugned notice is well reasoned and requires no interference. He further submits that, the petitioner had availed credit when no tax was paid by the selling dealer. He further submits that though the notice was sought to be served on the petitioner it could not be served as he had closed his business, and further the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10.On a perusal of the records and considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
