9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State within its jurisdiction. In this case, the respondent has demonstrated that petitioner has received input tax credit. It is also demonstrate by the respondent that upon receiving the assessment of the vendor, the Additional Commissioner was of the view that the matter should be re-looked to find if any tax concession/credit has been granted to the petitioner to which he is not entitled to. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondents acted beyond their jurisdiction or acted in a manner not provided in the statute. The entire litigation revolves around the question that the plant and machinery for which the petitioner has claimed the input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit on the purchase of the capital goods. He claims that he is entitled to input tax credit on the purchase of capital goods as per Section 6(6)(b) of the U.K. VAT Act which was filed by him in two equal yearly installments. On 18.01.2017, the petitioner received notice from the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Rudrapur Zone, Rudrapur, to the effect that the ITC claimed and given to the assessee on the purchase of capital goods was wrongly given, which was not legally available to him, so the petitioner was directed to show cause why permission of re-assessment would not be given to the authorities under Section 29(4) of the U.K. VAT Act. On 16.02.2017, the petitioner filed reply and stated that original statement was made aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer. When it was brought to the knowledge of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that re-assessment order was passed only after the returns of the vendor of the petitioner was scrutinized and accepted from where it was found that the petitioner may have purchased the old used machinery. During pendency of the case, on 28.06.2017, this Court directed the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit. Though, the order does not show the exact nature of affidavit required by the Court in this case, it is apparent that the Court was dwelling upon the question whether plant and machinery bought by the petitioner were new machinery sold by its vendor or it is old and used machinery. Only in the former case, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioning in the State within its jurisdiction. In this case, the respondent has demonstrated that petitioner has received input tax credit. It is also demonstrate by the respondent that upon receiving the assessment of the vendor, the Additional Commissioner was of the view that the matter should be re-looked to find if any tax concession/credit has been granted to the petitioner to which he is not entitled to. 5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondents acted beyond their jurisdiction or acted in a manner not provided in the statute. The entire litigation revolves around the question that the plant and machinery for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
