TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner's place of business was inspected by the Enforcement Wing Officers on 18.07.2013 and on verification of purchases made from other dealer and on verification of Annexure I and the departmental website it was noticed that there was variation with references to purchases made. Therefore, the respondent proposed to reverse the Input Tax Credit (ITC). For the notices issued by the respondent for proposing to reverse ITC, detailed replies was given by the petitioner and the respondent has passed the impugned orders confirming the proposal on 28.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petitions under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006 Act) for rectification on 19.09.2014 and by the impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the claim of the dealer under section 19 of the Act. Going by section 17 which provided that the burden on the purchasing dealer rested to the extent of showing that he was not liable to tax under the Act and read in the context of the fact that the petitioner-dealer had given his sellers' TIN number and had also produced the invoices evidencing the purchase of materials paying tax, the Department could not successfully canvass its claim that the petitioner was not entitled to have the refund. It was admitted that the petitioner's vendors were all registered dealers on the files of the Department and that the petitioner had also given the TIN number of these vendors. When such particulars were available, it was for the Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant Commissioner (CT), Valluvarkottam Assessment Circle, Chennai -6 reported in (2012) 50 VAR 179 (Mad) held that a perusal of rule 10 of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 read along with Section 19(1) of the Tamilnadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 made it clear that so long as the purchasing dealer had complied with the requirements as given under rule 10(2), the claim of the purchasing dealer could not be denied by the Department. The circular issued by the Commissioner clearly stated that so long as the vendor was found to be a registered dealer on the files of the Department, the claim of the dealer for refund could not be rejected nor delayed. The mere fact that the Department had not made an assessment on the dealer's vendor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment return under Section 22 (2), the petitioner-dealer had followed rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 and therefore, could not be said to have wrongly availed of input tax credit wrongly. Section 19(1) states that input-tax credit can be claimed by a registered dealer, if he establishes that the tax due on such purchase has been paid by him in the manner prescribed and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment was made. The pre-revision notices and the orders clearly stated that the petitioner-dealer had paid the tax to the selling dealer. If that be the case, the petitioner's case squarely fell under the proviso to section 19(1) of the Act. It was another matter that the selling dealer had not pai....