9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TNVAT Act, for the purchases effected from the local registered dealer, has become eligible to claim and avail ITC. Besides, the vendors, who sold the goods to the petitioner, are also being a registered dealer under the TNVAT Act, having issued tax invoices after collecting the taxes at 5%, the petitioner was rightly under the bonafide belief that the vendors would have paid the taxes collected from them to the Sales Tax Department in Annexure-II of their monthly returns filed for the years 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The impugned orders are set aside - All the writ petitions shall stand allowed. - THE HONORABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni For the Respondent : Mr. ANR. Jayaprath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision of this Court in Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vadapalani-I Circle reported in 60 VST 283 (Madras), wherein this Court held as follows 9. Sub-section (16) of Section 19 states that the input tax credit availed is provisional. It, however, does not empower the authority to revoke the input tax credit availed on a plea that the selling dealer has not paid the tax. It only relates to incorrect, incomplete or improper claim of input tax credit by the dealer. It is not so in these cases. In the present case, the petitioner-dealer, admittedly, had paid the tax to the selling dealer and claimed input tax credit and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment in Annexure-II of their monthly returns filed for the years 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the Assistant commissioner (CT) has lost sight of the same. Therefore, it is the duty of the respondent to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not paid taxes. Without doing so, the impugned order ought not to have been passed. 5. Per contra, Mr. ANR. Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate (CT) appearing for the respondent, would submit that the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by the decisions as mentioned by the petitioner in the aforesaid cases. However, as the liability is huge, a direction should be given to the petitioner to pay 25% of the tax liability. 6. This Court finds hardly any justificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
