9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee unless such transaction is found to be not genuine and is a fictitious document/invoice created to claim input tax credit i.e., a bogus transaction. In the absence of such analysis made by the authorities, merely for the reasons as aforesaid, input tax credit could not be denied. It is also pertinent to mention that the first appellate authority ought to have examined the details of selling dealers in the background of not filing the return or the tax payment collected being made by such selling dealers. It is needless to observe that if such selling dealers are not existing dealers or deregistered dealers, there is absolutely no bar to deny the input tax credit claimed by the assessee, but such reason has to be clearly recorded for e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax Act, 1956 ( CST Act for short). The appellant filed returns in VAT 100 for the tax periods in question. The prescribed authority, on verification of the VAT return held that some of the selling dealers did not furnish tax compliance, to declare the sales and discharge the net tax liability. Therefore, denied the input tax credit claimed on the basis of such tax invoices issued by such selling dealers. Accordingly, re-assessment order was passed under Section 39(2) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who partly allowed the appeal setting aside the disallowance of input tax credit in certain transactions. The revisional authority exercising the powers unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 64(1) of the Act. Accordingly, seeks to set aside the order of the revisional authority allowing this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that the order of the first appellate authority being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the same being an erroneous order, as no thorough investigation was made inasmuch as the genuineness of the transaction of the sellers who had issued the invoices, on the basis of which the input tax credit has been claimed by the assessee, the revisional authority was justified in passing the order impugned. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record the detailed statement showing the disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tax due in respect of such transaction or claim; and (b) in the case of second or subsequent detection, five times the tax due in respect of such transaction or claim. (3) Before issuing any direction for the payment of the penalty under this Section, the prescribed authority shall give to the dealer the opportunity of showing cause in writing against the imposition of such penalty. 9. The burden of proof certainly lies on the appellant assessee to prove the transaction whether is genuine or not. Merely for the reason that the selling dealers have not filed the return and failed to discharge the tax liability by remitting the tax collected, could not be a ground to disallow the input tax credit claimed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
