2019 (3) TMI 342 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI – Principles of natural justice – revision of earlier deemed assessment without considering the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with law – purchases effected by the petitioner were duly reported to the respondent – case of petitioner is that the respondent is to initiate action against the other end seller for not reporting the sales effected by them to the respondent.
–
Held that:- It is not in dispute that the petitioner who is the purchaser of the goods has reported to the respondent the details of the purchases from the seller, who has not reported the sale to the respondent. Copies of invoices relating to the purchase made by the petitioner were also submitted to the respondent
–
The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT), Presently Thiruverkadu Assessment Circle, Kolathur, Chennai Vs. Infiniti Wholesale Limited [2016 (9) TMI 1431 – MADRAS HIGH
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
20-2-2019 – Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For the Respondent : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader ORDER The Instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the respondent in Tin.No. 33906161570/2008-09. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has passed the impugned order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 revising the earlier deemed assessment without considering the objections raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the purchases effected by the petitioner were duly reported to the respondent. According to the petitioner, eventhough copies of invoices raised by the other end seller was produced to the respondent, the respondent has passed the impugned order revising the assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. According to the petitioner, it is for the respondent to initiate action against the other end seller
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ions were raised in reply by the petitioner, the said objections were considered by the respondent in the impugned order. 6.He also drew the attention of this Court to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT), Presently Thiruverkadu Assessment Circle, Kolathur, Chennai Vs. Infiniti Wholesale Limited reported in [2017] 99 VST 341 (Mad) which confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 06.11.2014, wherein, the Division Bench has accepted the findings of the learned Single Judge and observed as follows:- …To say the least, the show-cause notice issued by the assessing officer proposing to reverse the I.T.C. Availed of by the respondent/writ petitioner/dealer is lacking any valid or sustainable basis. If the sales effected to the writ petitioner/dealer are not disclosed by such a seller either in the form of return filed monthly or the tax collected from the writ petitioner/dealer is not made over to the Department by such seller, th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ioner is not made over to the department by such seller, the action lies against such a defaulting seller but not against the purchaser. According to the petitioner, in the instant case, the petitioner is only a purchaser and he has also given copies of invoices raised by the seller to the respondent and therefore, he is not at fault and if at all any action can be initiated by the respondent, it can be initiated only against the other end seller. 8.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that there is an alternative efficacious appellate remedy available to the petitioner as against the impugned order under Section 51 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. According to the respondent, without exercising the alternate remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. Discussion: 9.It is not in dispute that the petitioner who is the purchaser of the goods has reported to the respondent the details of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
who is the purchaser who has claimed Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) based upon the invoice generated by seller. The genuineness of the purchase is also not disputed by the respondent. In similar set of facts, this Court in the judgment referred to supra, quashed the impugned assessment order holding that the purchaser is not liable for non reporting of the sale by the seller. 13.In the result, the impugned order, dated 08.10.2015, passed by the respondent in Tin.No.33906161570/2008-09, is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration and the respondent is directed to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioner including the right of personal hearing and pass final order under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14.With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitio
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =