Input tax credit and statutory forms cannot be denied mechanically for seller default or mere delay in filing.

A purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit merely because the selling dealer's registration was later cancelled retrospectively or because the seller failed to remit tax already collected; the default lies with the selling dealer, and the reversal of credit was set aside. A statutory form cannot be rejected solely for late filing, because delay by itself is not a sufficient ground for outright rejection; the authority must consider the form on merits in light of the governing circular. The adverse findings on input tax credit and Form-W were interfered with, while the remaining undisputed tax liability was left to be paid as directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit could be reversed against the purchasing dealer on the ground that the selling dealer's registration was cancelled retrospectively or that the selling dealer had not paid tax; (ii) whether Form-W could be rejected solely because it was submitted belatedly.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit could be reversed against the purchasing dealer on the ground that the selling dealer's registration was cancelled retrospectively or that the selling dealer had not paid tax.

Analysis: The claim for input tax credit was considered in the light of the statutory scheme under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and the settled position that a purchasing dealer who has bought goods from a dealer having a valid registration at the time of sale, paid tax on the invoices, and established compliance with the prescribed manner of claim cannot be denied credit merely because the selling dealer's registration was cancelled later or the selling dealer failed to remit the collected tax. The liability for such default is fastened on the selling dealer, not on the bona fide purchasing dealer.

Conclusion: The reversal of input tax credit on these grounds was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Form-W could be rejected solely because it was submitted belatedly.

Analysis: The belated submission of statutory forms was examined with reference to the departmental circular clarifying that delay by itself is not a ground for outright rejection. The authority was therefore required to consider the form on merits instead of rejecting it mechanically on the ground of delay.

Conclusion: The rejection of Form-W merely as belated was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed in part, the adverse findings on input tax credit and belated Form-W were interfered with, and the remaining undisputed tax issues were left to be paid as directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit merely because the selling dealer's registration is cancelled retrospectively or the selling dealer defaults in remitting tax already collected, and a statutory form cannot be rejected solely for belated filing without considering its merits under the governing circular and rules.

---