Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), who took notice for the respondent and with their consent, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

2. There are two writ petitions filed by M/s.Rinku Steel Industries, represented by its Proprietor Mavaram, challenging the impugned proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Guindy Assessment Circle, Chennai in TIN 33950906422/ 2012-2013 and 2011-12 respectively dated 22.5.2015 on the ground that the same are illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the ratio laid down by this Court in Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani I Assessment Circle,Chennai and another reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad)., wherein, this Court has clearly held that the Assessing Officer cannot reverse ITC claimed by the registered dealer on the ground that the registration certificates of the sellers have been cancelled.

3.4. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently the petitioner filed copy of the objections along with annexures on 24.01.2015 for proper consideration of the respondent and the same were also acknowledged on 09.02.2015 by the respondent, indicating that the said objections along with annexures were received on 03.02.2015.

3.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that again the petitioner was issued with notice dated 27.02.2015 with respect to the assessment year 2012-2013, for which the petitioner submitted an additional reply on 16.03.2015. Inspite of the objections and the additional reply filed supported by documents, the respondent has passed the impugned orders dated 22.05.2015, taking a ground completely contrary to the ratio laid down in Sri Vinayaga Agencies case reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad)., mentioned supra, viz., the benefit of ITC claimed by the petitioner is liable to be reversed on the ground that the certificates of registration of his dealers have been cancelled.

3.6. That apart, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when all other pleas raised by the petitioner have been almost accepted, only the sole ground that registration certificates of the dealers have been cancelled, the respondent has come forward to pass the wrong impugned orders. Therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.

4. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the following Judgments:-

(i) Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani I Assessment Circle,Chennai and another reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad)., 
	"M/s Star Traders          		TIN:33941103580
	M/s Murugan Enterprises 	TIN:33471283337
	M/s Muyura Marketing		TIN:33071283363
	M/s Savitha Enterprises		TIN:33561283336
	M/s Jayaram Dheva People	TIN:33820081945
	M/s Aroma Sales Impex		TIN:33710846220
	M/s Asthalaxmi Enterprises	TIN:33760782318
	M/s Global Impex			TIN:33391352639
	M/s Sri Ram Enterprises		TIN:33510341154
	M/s Lotus Traders		TIN:33480100659
	M/s Sri Balaji Traders		TIN:33731088515
	M/s R.N.Enterprises		TIN:33771088493"

When the purchases of goods from the above dealers were duly entered and reflected in the accounts and monthly returns filed, giving details of purchasers including the registration particulars, commodity code, value, rate of tax, amount of VAT and category of goods in the Annexure I of the said returns, the respondent, in the impugned orders, have not mentioned anywhere that the purchases of goods from the above dealers are doubtful or incorrect. That apart, the foundation upon which the respondent has passed the impugned orders clearly shows the reason that the certificates of registration of the dealers have been cancelled, reversal of ITC has to be effected against the petitioner. The said approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, in my considered view, is contrary to the settled legal position, as laid down by this Court in 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:-