Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on another decision of this Court in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Vadapalani I Assessment Circle, Chennai and Another reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad), wherein, it is 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 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, 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. 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 liable to be set aside".

6.In the light of the above decision, the observation made by the respondent in the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. Further in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani-I Asssessment Circle, Chennai and Another reported in (2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad), this Court held that there is no power with the assessing authority to revoke input-tax credit on ground selling dealer has not paid tax and 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, 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. 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 liable to be set aside. That 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 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".