TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 564
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner is a dealer in general goods and assessee on the file of the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Vellure (Rural), Vellore. For the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner filed monthly returns in Form I with annnexures I & II, reporting a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 33,92,28,479/- and during year under reference, the petitioner claimed Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 3,15,32,012/- and adjusted ITC towards Output tax due to the extent of Rs. 3,10,45,118/-. 3.The respondent issued a notice dated 22.08.2013, stating that on verification of the monthly returns, it was found that the Input Tax Credit amount claimed has not reached the Government Exchequer, as the purchases were not reported by their seller. Therefore, the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and it is rather surprising to note that their TIN Numbers were not specified in the invoices. Even assuming that it is true, nothing prevented the Assessing Officer to direct the petitioner to produce the original invoices, the books of accounts and other details and thereafter frame the assessment. The process of assessment has to be done with dialog and discussion. The Assessment Officer has adopted a summary procedure treating the assessee as an adversary. If such exercise had been done, this Writ Petition itself could have been avoided and the appropriate revenue which the Government is entitled to could have been arrived at. However, on account of improper procedure, having been adopted by the Assessing Officer, has resulted in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rials paying tax, the Department could not successfully canvass its claim that the petitioner was not entitled to have the refund. In the instant case it was admitted that the petitioner's vendors were all registered dealers on the files of the Department and that petitioner had also given the TIN number of these vendors. When such particulars were available, it was for the Department to take necessary action against the vendors, who had not remitted tax collected by them to the State. Without taking recourse to that, the Department could not deny the claim of the petitioner. 9. However, the learned counsel pointed out that the proviso under section 19(1) was substituted by the section 8 of second amendment of Rule 13 of 2015, which ca....