M\/s. Lawrance Livingston Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
VAT and Sales Tax
2019 (3) TMI 342 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 20-2-2019
W.P.(MD)No.11401 of 2016 And W.M.P.(MD)No.8724 of 2016
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar
\nFor the Respondent : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader
\nORDER
\nThe Instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the respondent in Tin.No. 33906161570\/2008-09.
\n2.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.
\n3.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<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 15 as well as to the impugned order passed by the respondent. He submitted, that a detailed reply was given by the petitioner to the respondent stating that the proposal to revise the assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is unjustified. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ch is prima facie against the principle of law…” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ither 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, action lies only against such a defaulting seller but not against the purchaser. In the instant case also the error, is not attributable to the petitioner 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Lawrance Livingston Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.VAT and Sales Tax2019 (3) TMI 342 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 20-2-2019W.P.(MD)No.11401 of 2016 And W.M.P.(MD)No.8724 of 2016 CST, VAT & Sales TaxMr. Justice Abdul Quddhose For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For the Respondent : Mr.M.Jeyakumar Additional Government Pleader … Continue reading “M\/s. Lawrance Livingston Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAccording to him, though several objections were raised in reply by the petitioner, the said objections were considered by the respondent in the impugned order.
\n6.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:-
\n …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 pet<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the aforesaid decision, if the sales effected by the writ petitioner are not disclosed by his seller either in the form of return filed monthly or the tax collected from the writ petitioner 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.
\n8.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 respon<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn 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.
\n13.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 heari<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n