Input tax credit denial set aside where the authority failed to consider all grounds and remand was ordered.

Input tax credit denial under the Orissa VAT Act could not stand where the authority failed to deal with the petitioner's express grounds, including the alternative plea under Section 20(3). The impugned order treated the transactions as paper transactions and rejected credit under Section 20(8)(c), but it did not address issues left open by the earlier coordinate bench. The HC found that the petitioner was entitled to urge those grounds before the authority. The order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal order denying input tax credit could be sustained when the authority did not deal with the petitioner's grounds, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit under Section 20(8)(c) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and contended that its alternative plea under Section 20(3) was not examined. The order under challenge was found to have proceeded on the footing that the transactions were paper transactions and to have denied the credit without addressing the grounds that had been expressly left open by the earlier order of the Coordinate Bench. Since the petitioner was entitled to urge all those grounds before the authority, and the impugned order did not deal with them, the Court found it appropriate to interfere.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the authority for fresh consideration.

---