Court upholds writ petitions despite alternate remedy; VAT cancellation doesn't bar credit. Burden of proof not met. Remanded for fresh orders.

The court found the writ petitions maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy. Input tax credit cannot be denied if the supplier's VAT registration is cancelled retrospectively after the sale. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required under the Act. The court set aside the impugned order, remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh orders within three months, and directed the petitioner to file a consolidated final reply with evidence. The respondent was instructed to consider the evidence and pass appropriate orders within three months, allowing video conferencing if necessary due to the pandemic.

---

---

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petitions.
2. Justification of ordering recovery of input tax credit.
3. Burden of proof under the Tamil Nadu Value-Added Tax Act, 2006.

Issue 1: The court found the writ petitions maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner. The court noted that it would be unfair to dismiss the writ petitions outright after admitting them in 2016.

Issue 2: The court referenced previous cases to establish that input tax credit cannot be denied if the supplier's VAT registration is cancelled retrospectively after the sale. However, the court highlighted that the input tax credit availed by the petitioner was provisional, and the respondent had the power to revoke it if wrongly availed.

Issue 3: The petitioner failed to sufficiently discharge the burden of proof required under the Act. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide documents to substantiate the movement of goods and failed to explain details invoice-wise. The court emphasized the importance of producing necessary documents to regularize the input tax credit.

The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh orders within three months. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated final reply with evidence to substantiate the claim for input tax credit. The respondent was instructed to consider the evidence and arrive at a fair conclusion based on the principle of preponderance of probability. The petitioner was given one month to file evidence and objections, with the respondent required to pass appropriate orders within three months. Video conferencing was allowed for case conduct if necessary due to the ongoing pandemic. The writ petitions were disposed of by way of remand with these observations, and all miscellaneous petitions were closed without any cost implications.

---