9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oof of payment of invoices in the form of the relevant bank statements, the above conclusion cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order warrants interference. The impugned order also calls for interference because the petitioner was not put on notice that the goods dealt with by the petitioner are different from those dealt with by its supplier, but a finding was recorded on this issue in the impugned order. The impugned order is liable to be quashed for not duly considering the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner to establish that the purchases were genuine. Hence, the impugned order is quashed. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for reconsideration by the assessing officer. The petitioner is granted leave t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the GST registration of the person from whom purchases were made by the assessee, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Jinsasan Distributors v. Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Chintadripet Assessment Circle, Chennai (Jinsasan Distributors), (2013) 59 VST 256 [Mad]. Learned counsel also pointed out that the impugned order records the completely erroneous conclusion that the taxable person has not produced documents, as required under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the TNGST Act). As regards the finding in the impugned order that products dealt with by the assessee are entirely different from those dealt with by M/s.Prince Sales Agency, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, dated 13.03.2023 in Civil Appeal No.230 of 2023 . In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the genuineness of the transaction has to be established by the assessee claiming ITC as per Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the TNVAT Act read with Rule 36 of the rules framed thereunder imposes a similar obligation on assessees in Tamil Nadu. 5. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that invoice copies, e-way bills and proof of payment were produced before the respondents. In fact, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
