9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice that the issue that arises in this writ petition relating to reversal of input tax credit pursuant to cancellation of selling / purchasing registration, is covered in favour of the petitioner. 2. They cite the decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v Suresh Trading Company (1997) 11 SCC 378 and a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) Broadway Assessment Circle, Chennai v Bhairav Trading Company [(2016) 95 VST 315 (Mad)]. In light of the aforesaid, impugned order of assessment is set aside and this writ petition is allowed. No costs." 2. In the said writ petition, the petitioner/respondent herein has challenged the order dated 22.07.2015 in TNVAT/33250021294/2014-15 al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t herein reads as under: "We wish to inform that we have purchase during the month of Feb 2015 from Quality Industries are active dealer and we have received the Feb 2015 Form I and Annexure from the dealer, the same has been enclosed herewith for your reference and we also paid CST Tax for the November, 2014 of Rs. 164710/- chq bearing No.000223 Dated: 23.12.2014 has been passed in our account for that I have attached the copy of Bank Statement for your ready reference." 4. Reading the impugned order, the notice and the reply of the respondent herein indicates that the respondent has not furnished any documents to substantiate that indeed there was a sale from the dealer, namely M/s.Quality Industries. All that the respondent has stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 633] and Vinayaga Agencies v. CCT [Vinayaga Agencies v. CCT, (2013) 60 VST 283 : 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 323] are no longer a good law in the light of the recent decision of the court in State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P) Ltd. [State of Karnataka v. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading (P) Ltd., (2023) 111 GSTR 1 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 248], dated 13-3-2023 in Civil Appeal. No. 230 of 2023. We shall deal with the same in due course of discussion. 102. The ratio in Vinayaga Agencies v. CCT [Vinayaga Agencies v. CCT, (2013) 60 VST 283 : 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 323] cannot be applied in all cases. Likewise, the ratio in Jinsasan Distributors v. CTO [Jinsasan Distributors v. CTO, (2013) 59 VST 256 : 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 4633], cannot be applied any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO, (2013) 59 VST 256 : 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 4633], placing reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Co. [State of Maharashtra v.\ Suresh Trading Co., (1997) 11 SCC 378 : (1998) 109 STC 439] cannot be held to have an universal application in all cases of cancellation of VAT registration of the selling dealer with retrospective date, if registration itself was obtained only to facilitate bogus input tax credit being claimed availed and utilised without actual transaction of "sale" and supply of goods to cheat the revenue as is contemplated under Section 19(13) of the T.N. Vat Act, 2006. 106. Therefore, a registered dealer claiming input tax credit has to discharge the burden of proof required to be discharged under Section 17(2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
