2015 (1) TMI 590 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court allows writ petition, rejects reversal of Input Tax Credit ( )

Infiniti Wholesale Limited, (formerly known as Woolworths Wholesale (India) Private Limited) Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT)

Infiniti Wholesale Limited, (formerly known as Woolworths Wholesale (India) Private Limited) Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) - [2015] 82 VST 457 ... Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the writ petition.2. Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) based on the respondent's allegations.3. Procedural fairness and application of mind by the assessing authority.4. Legal principles regarding ITC claims under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner should have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority as per Section 51 of the VAT Act. The petitioner countered that the assessment order was a result of non-application of mind, lack of reasonable opportunity, and arbitrary refusal to assist in reconciliation/verification of vendor details. The court clarified that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically oust its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Given the circumstances and procedural lapses, the court rejected the preliminary objection, allowing the writ petition to proceed.2. Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC):The respondent alleged discrepancies in the petitioner's tax returns, including short reporting of turnover, non-filing of returns by vendors, non-payment of tax by vendors, and purchases from unregistered dealers. Based on these allegations, the respondent proposed to reverse the ITC of Rs. 3,73,69,631/- availed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that it had valid tax invoices and that Section 19 (13) of the Act did not apply as the credit was taken on the basis of valid tax invoices. The petitioner also submitted confirmations from vendors for a substantial portion of the disputed amount and requested assistance from the department for reconciliation.3. Procedural Fairness and Application of Mind:The court found that the respondent failed to apply his mind to the submissions and documents provided by the petitioner. Despite the petitioner furnishing substantial evidence and repeatedly requesting specific transaction details for reconciliation, the respondent issued a non-speaking order, stating that no documentary evidence was provided by the petitioner. The court noted that the show cause notice was vague and the assessment order was arbitrary, lacking proper reasoning and consideration of the petitioner's submissions.4. Legal Principles Regarding ITC Claims:The court referred to previous judgments, including Althaf Shoes (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) and Sri Vinayaga Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), which established that ITC claims cannot be denied if the purchasing dealer has complied with the requirements under Rule 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Rules, 2007. The court emphasized that the liability for non-payment of tax should be on the selling dealer, not the purchasing dealer who has shown proof of tax payment. The petitioner's case fell under these principles, and the ITC could not be reversed based on the grounds stated by the respondent.Conclusion:The court concluded that the respondent's actions were arbitrary, procedurally flawed, and without jurisdiction. The impugned assessment order dated 25.02.2013 was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed, with no costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.