TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside orders, remands for fresh decisions. Emphasizes provisional nature of tax credit.</h1> <h3>M/s. Inno-Tech Electronics Systems, Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement (East), Chennai</h3> M/s. Inno-Tech Electronics Systems, Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Enforcement (East), Chennai - TMI Issues Involved:Challenge to impugned orders dated 01.12.2015 and consequential proceedings dated 23.03.2016 under TNVAT Act, 2006 regarding Input Tax Credit availed in respect of mismatch.Detailed Analysis:1. Impugned Orders Challenge: The petitioner challenged the orders dated 01.12.2015 and consequential proceedings dated 23.03.2016 under TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner, a trader in UPS, received notices for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2014-15 after an audit of their business place. Despite submitting supporting documents and attending personal hearings, the petitioner's objections were rejected, leading to the impugned orders. The dispute primarily revolves around the availability of Input Tax Credit in cases of mismatch.2. Legal Submissions: The petitioner contended that they complied with the relevant documentation requirements to claim input tax credit lawfully. Reference was made to Section 19(10)(a) and Rule 10(2) of TNVAT Rules, 2007. The petitioner argued that the actions taken were not in line with the provisions of TNVAT Act and Rules. Citing precedent cases, the petitioner asserted that the input tax credit availed was correct and should not have been revoked.3. Judicial Precedents: The court referred to past judgments, highlighting that input tax credit availed is provisional under Section 19(16) of TNVAT Act. The court emphasized that revocation is only warranted for incorrect, incomplete, or improper claims, not for cases where tax was paid to the selling dealer. The court found the revision orders incorrect and contrary to the law, leading to their setting aside.4. Alternate Remedy: The Standing Counsel argued that the impugned orders were well reasoned, and the petitioner had the option to appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. However, the court noted that it does not act as an appellate authority and decided based on the legal aspects presented.5. Court Decision: Considering the disputed factual questions regarding Input Tax Credit, the court found the Writ Petitions lacking in merits. Citing another case, the court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the cases back to the 1st respondent for fresh orders in line with the law and previous judgments. The court directed the 1st respondent to act upon the fresh orders once the devised mechanism is implemented.6. Conclusion: The court allowed the Writ Petitions by way of remand, without imposing any costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed, emphasizing the need for fresh orders in compliance with the law and judicial precedents.This comprehensive analysis covers the legal intricacies and the court's reasoning behind setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
