TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner claimed refund of ITC amounting to Rs. 11,59,936 in form W for the month of August, 2007 as per section 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Originally, the said claim was allowed by the respondent in his order dated April 30, 2008. Thereafter, a notice was issued on January 11, 2010 on the premise that on a scrutiny of the refund claim filed with reference to the purchase figures, discrepancies were noted in the context of the sellers not having reported the sales turnover by the respective assessment circles and the dealer had not paid the input tax. Thus on the mere failure of the sellers not reporting the turnover and paying the tax, the relief granted to the petitioner was sought to be withdrawn and the petition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the instruction of the Commissioner dated August 21, 2007 wherein the Commissioner had stated that "the assessing officer shall verify the purchase bills and cause verification of the genuineness of the dealers using DEALER MASTER. If the assessing officer is satisfied regarding the existence of the dealers he has to refund the tax paid on the purchases by the exporter". It was further stated that "the assessing officer need not verify whether the tax was paid or not. For non-payment of tax by the suppliers, the purchasers cannot be held responsible. In the name of verification, the issuing of refund should not be delayed by the authorities concerned". The learned counsel appearing for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we may have to reject the contention of the Revenue placing reliance on the decision of this court reported in [2010] 35 VST 103 (Mad) (Lloyd Insulations (India) Limited v. Joint Commissioner (CT), Chennai (Central Division)), which stands on a different footing as regards the clarification issued by the Commissioner on an application made by the assessee as to the rate of tax. As far as the instruction given on August 21, 2007 by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, there is no clarification given on any of the provisions of the Act or about the rate of tax on a particular entry. All that the Commissioner had stated in the said communication is only an instruction to the officers concerned in the matter of considering the input-tax credit c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the manner of establishing that the claim on input-tax credit, which reads as follows: "10. (2) Every registered dealer who claims input-tax credit under sub-section (1) of section 19 shall, produce the original tax invoice, in support of his claim of the input-tax credit, containing the following details, namely:- (i) A consecutive serial number; (ii) The date on which the invoice is issued; (iii) The name, address and the taxpayer identification number of the seller; (iv) The name, address and the taxpayer identification number of the buyer; (v) The description of the goods; (vi) The quantity of volume of the goods; (vii) The value of the goods; (viii) The rate and amount of tax charged; and (ix) The total v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f these vendors. When such particulars are available, it is for the Revenue to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not remitted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, I do not think that the Revenue could deny the claim of the assessee. The respondent had filed counter contending that the order passed by the respondent is amenable to appeal remedy, hence, writ may not be issued. I do not think that the mere presence of an appeal remedy is a thumb rule for rejecting the claim in matters of this nature where the facts are not in any manner controverted by the Revenue and that the assessee had complied with the requirements as given under rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules. In ....