2016 (7) TMI 1159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner, who is the registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, (TNVAT Act), has challenged the assessment orders for the years 2010-11 and 2013-14. Notices were issued to the petitioner on 27.10.2015, stating that on verification of the monthly returns in annexure I, it revealed that the petitioner has effected local purchases from registration cancelled dealers and accordingly, the respondent proposed to reverse the ITC claimed by the petitioner. In fact, these notices dated 27.10.2015, were issued to the petitioner after the earlier Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment orders in W.P.Nos.11147 & 11148 of 2015, were allowed by order dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P) LTD., v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VALLUVARKOTTAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE,CHENNAI [(2012) 50 VST 179 (Mad) and (ii) SRI VINAYAGA AGENCIES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), VADAPALANI-I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER [(2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad)]. 5.In the case of ALTHAF SHOES (P) LTD., cited supra, the petitioner was a dealer and exporter of finished leather and other products, who claimed refund of ITC under Section 18 (2) of the VAT Act in respect of the exports made. Though the refund was granted, subsequently notice was issued seeking to withdraw the relief on the ground that its dealer had not reported the sales turnover and remitted tax and an order was passed, withdrawing the relief granted and levying penalty. While considering....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut-tax credit claim. Holding so, allowed the writ petition and in the case of Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani-1, Assessment Circle, Chennai reported in (2013) 60 VST 283 (Mad), the petitioner was dealer in lubricants, purchasing lubricants from a registered dealer. On inspection, it was found that the vendor / dealer had not filed monthly returns nor paid tax to the Department. Though the petitioner had paid tax to the selling dealer, revision notice was issued proposing that the ITC should be reversed on the failure of the selling dealer in paying the tax. Allowing the said writ petition, it was held that at the time of filing the self-assessment return under Section 22 (2), the petitioner-dealer had follo....