9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TANTIA ENTERPRISES [2018 (4) TMI 1800 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] relying upon the decision rendered by the other High Courts and considering views taken by different High Courts held that it will be impossible for the petitioner to prove that the selling dealer has paid tax or not as while making the payment, the invoice including tax paid or not he has to prove the same and the petitioner has already put a summary on record which clearly establish the amount which has been paid to the selling dealer including the purchase amount as well as tax amount. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that Rule 18 if it is accepted, then the respondents will to take undue advantage and cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board was justified in law in deleting the Tax, Interest and penalty despite of the fact that the Input Tax Credit claimed by the petitioner was found to be on the basis of false/forged VAT invoices issued by a dealer who has not deposited the tax and its registration was cancelled u/s 16(4) (g) of the Act. (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in holding that the respondent cannot be hold responsible for the amount not deposited by the selling dealer and allowed the benefit of Input Tax Credit which ultimately will amount to double jeopardy to the State as the selling dealer has not deposited the tax whereas subsequent dealer has claimed benefit of Input Tax Credit. (iv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mr. R.B. Mathur is that Rule 18 will take care of the situation. However, while considering the matter, we have to look into the matter whether the benefit envisaged under the Rajasthan VAT Act especially under sub-Section (1) shall be allowed only after verification of deposit of the tax payable by the selling dealer in the manner as notified by the Commissioner. We are in complete agreement that it will be impossible for the petitioner to prove that the selling dealer has paid tax or not as while making the payment, the invoice including tax paid or not he has to prove the same and the petitioner has already put a summary on record which clearly establish the amount which has been paid to the selling dealer including the purchase amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified in this sub section and partly as otherwise, input tax credit shall be allowed proportionate to the extent they are used for the purposes specified in this sub section. (2) The input tax credit under sub-section (1) shall be allowed only after verification of the deposit of tax payable by the selling dealer in the manner as may be notified by the Commissioner. . (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no input tax credit shall be allowed on the purchases (i) from a registered dealer who is liable to pay tax under sub section (2) of section 3 or who has opted to pay tax under section 5 of this Act; or (ii) of goods made in the course of import from outside the State; or (iia) of goods taxable at first point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner, Commercial Tax, Circle-B, Kota (Raj.) Versus M/s. Trilokchand Bharat Kumar, Bhamashah Mandi, Kota The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.115/2011 and connected matters, decided on 29.09.2016, the view taken as above has been reiterated as below:- 10. It may be that M/s Arvind Traders and M/s Nakoda Traders, Kota, have been found to be non genuine or bogus by the Revenue Authorities, but at a later point of time, which is admitted in the instant case. The fact remains that the transaction of purchase/sale is prior to 31.3.2002, at that point of time both the firms were having valid registration certificate. Therefore, in my view the AO was not justified in holding or observing about misuse of dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statute which entitle persons dealing with registered dealers to act upon the strength of registration certificates. 12. This court in the case of M/s Vardhman Mills (supra) also took into consideration identical facts and held that retrospective cancellation of registration of purchasing dealer does not affect the right of selling dealer for deduction. 13. The judgment in the case of Infinity Wholesale Limited (supra) of the Madras High Court, is also on the same lines and supports the claim of respondent assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue raised in this petition has already been settled by this Court in more than one decision. Learned counsel for the revenue could not bring to the notice of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
