Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) Both the utensils and the ss scrap are taxable in the hands of the appellants being the first seller. As seen from the inspection statement, neither any purchase suppression nor any sales suppression was found out and recorded.
(e) What has been not recorded in the inspection statement cannot be a base for revision of assessment.
(f) Moreover the report received from the Enforcement Wing lacks any logic in mooting out a turnover and reversal of ITC. The learned Assessing Officer, no other go has implemented such report in his order which cannot stand the test of an appeal."
Therefore on sale of such scrap the respondent is entitled to claim ITC. Further the Audit officials had not found any purchase suppression or sales suppression. They found negligible stock discrepancy of Rs.2,357/- only. In these circumstances it is not correct to reverse the ITC on the sale of scrap.
Further on perusal of sworn statement of Thiru.T.E.Nandakumar, it is seen that he requested to drop the reversal proposal as said by officials. But the VAT Audit officials have not passed any other or finding in the Audit Report. They said in the Part-X summary column as "As per statement recorded". Further in the inspection statement, neither any purchase suppression nor any sales suppression was found out and recorded. Further there is no admission by the dealer in the sworn statement. So, without analyzing the records the Assessing Officer passed revised order.

8. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) further submitted that the respondent-dealer enjoyed more ITC, by reporting lesser sale value in the name of scrap, which is evident from the inspection report and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have held that no purchase or sales suppression was noticed by the audit officials, when reversal of ITC, is not with reference to purchase or sales suppression, but only with the accumulation of ITC, by wrongly reporting lesser sale value in the name of scrap.

12. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), submitted that by reporting lesser sale value in the name of scrap, the dealer enjoyed more ITC, the Tribunal, after going through the inspection statement and other material on record, held that neither any purchase suppression nor any sales suppression was found out and recorded.

13. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), submitted that the dealer himself has admitted the proposal, at the time of inspection, going through the statement, the Tribunal has categorically held that there is no admission by the dealer in the sworn statement. The stock discrepancy recorded by the Tribunal is Rs.2,357/-, and the Tribunal has observed as negligible stock.