Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader [Tax] appearing for the respondent submitted that the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Emerald Stone Export vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], FAC, Pudukkottai I Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai [[2012] 52 VST 286 [Mad]]; Althaf Shoes [P] Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai [[2012] 50 VST 179 [Mad]]; Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], Vadapalani-I Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another [[2013] 60 VST 283 [Mad]; and Infiniti Wholesale Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Koyambedu, Chennai [[2015] 82 VST 457 [Mad]].

7.In Infiniti Wholesale Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], Koyambedu Assessment Circle, Koyambedu, Chennai [[2015] 82 VST 457 [Mad]], this Court relying upon the judgments reported in Althaf Shoes [P] Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai [[2012] 50 VST 179 [Mad]] and Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], Vadapalani-I Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another [[2013] 60 VST 283 [Mad] has held as follows;

22.In the case of Althaf Shoes [P] Ltd., vs. Assistant Commissioner [CT], Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai-6 reported in [2012] 50 VST 179 [Mad], the petitioner was a dealer and exporter of finished leather and other products, who claimed refund of ITC under Section 18(2) of the VAT Act in respect of the exports made. Though the refund was granted, subsequently notice was issued seeking to withdraw the relief on the ground that its dealer had not reported the sales turnover and remitted tax and an order was passed, withdrawing the relief granted and levying penalty. While considering the said case, it was held that the circular issued by the Commissioner clearly states that so long as the vendor is found to be a registered dealer on the files of the Revenue, the claim of the assessee for refund could not be rejected nor delayed. Revenue in the said case did not deny, as a matter of fact, that the assessees vendors are all registered dealers on the files of the Revenue and the assessee had also given the TIN number of these vendors. When such particulars are available, it is for the Revenue to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not remitted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, the Revenue could not deny the claim of the assessee. Going by Rule10(2) of TN Vat Rules read along with section 19(1) of the TN Vat Act, it is clear that so long as the purchasing dealer has complied with the requirements as given under Rule 10(2), the claim of the purchasing dealer cannot, by any length of reasoning, be denied by the Revenue. The mere fact that the Revenue had not made an assessment on the assessee's vendor, per se, cannot stand in the way of the assessing officer considering the claim of the assessee under section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. A reading of the circular issued by the Commissioner along with the provisions of the Act makes it clear that there is nothing repugnant in the said circular issued by the Commissioner as a head of the Department as regards the provisions of the Act on input-tax credit claim. Holding so, allowed the writ petition.

23.In the case of Sri Vinayaka Agencies [2013] 60 VST 283 [Mad], the petitioner was dealer in lubricants, purchasing lubricants from a registered dealer. On inspection, it was found that the vendor / dealer had not filed monthly returns nor paid tax to the Department. Though the petitioner had paid tax to the selling dealer, revision notice was issued proposing that the ITC should be reversed on the failure of the selling dealer in paying the tax. Allowing the said writ petition, it was held that at the time of filing the self-assessment return under section 22(2), the petitioner-dealer had followed Rule 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, and therefore, could not be said to have wrongly availed of input tax credit wrongly. 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 self-assessment was made. The pre-revision notices and the orders clearly stated that the petitioner-dealer had paid the tax to the selling dealer. If that be the case, it was held that the petitioner's case therein squarely fell under the proviso to section 19(1) of the Act. Further, it was another matter that the selling dealer had not paid the collected tax. The liability had to be fastened on the selling dealer and not on the petitioner-dealer which had shown proof of payment of tax on purchases made. The orders were thus set-aside.