9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the judgment reported in (2012) 50 VST 179 (Mds) (Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle Chennai). 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though 20 days time was sought by the petitioner on 19.12.2014, when the notices were received for the respective assessment years with proposal to reverse the claim of ITC on the ground that the selling dealer has not filed monthly returns and payment of tax to the respective assessing officer, without granting or rejecting the request, the respondent has passed orders on 30.12.2014, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vadapalani I Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad), this Court has held as follows:- "....Section 19(1) states that input-tax credit can be claimed by a registered dealer, if he establishes that the tax due on such purchase has been paid by him in the manner prescribed and that was accepted at the time when the selfassessment was made. The pre-revision notices and the orders clearly stated that the petitionerdealer had paid the tax to the selling dealer. If that be the case, the petitioner's case squarely fell under the proviso to section 19(1) of the Act. It was another matter that the selling dealer had not paid the collected tax. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... context of the fact that the petitioner-dealer had given his sellers TIN number and had also produced the invoices evidencing the purchase of materials paying tax, the Department could not successfully canvass its claim that the petitioner was not entitled to have the refund. It was admitted that the petitioner's vendors were all registered dealers on the files of the Department and that the petitioner had also given the TIN number of these vendors. When such particulars were available, it was for the Department to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not remitted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, the Department could not deny the claim of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the above d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional. It however, does not empower the authority to revoke the input-tax credit availed of on a plea that the selling dealer has nor paid the tax. It only relates to incorrect, incomplete or improper claim of input-tax credit by the dealer". 8. Hence, I have no other option except to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matters back to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on merits. 9. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the authority concerned for passing appropriate orders afresh on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to appear in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
