2016 (10) TMI 748

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [TNVAT Act, 2006]. For the Assessment Year 2013-14, the petitioner was issued with a notice dated 08.07.2016, alleging that in the said order, there is a wrong availment of Input Tax Credit [ITC]. The reason is that on verification of the website of the dealer, viz., the petitioner, it is revealed that they purchased goods from M/s.AMI Enterprises for the months from January 2014 to March 2014 and claimed ITC. However, in the Annexure-II of the said Selling Dealer, viz., M/s.AMI Enterprises, it was noticed that they have availed NIL Returns, thereby reporting that they have not made any sales to the petitioner. On that ground, the ITC claim of the petitioner was soug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the petitioner in their reply dated 02.08.2016, however, proceeded to reject the reply on the ground that the revised return filed by the Selling Dealer, viz., M/s.AMI Enterprises, is an after-thought. Therefore, the proposal in the notice dated 08.07.2016 was confirmed. 4. The first mistake done by the respondent is not affording an opportunity of personal hearing, though he had stated that such opportunity will be given in the notice dated 08.07.2016. However, one issue that has to be pointed out is that in the notice dated 08.07.2016, the respondent stated that the petitioner can file objections to the notice and they will be heard in person at his office at 11.30 a.m. on any working days from within 15 days from the date of receip....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the ITC availed by the Purchasing Dealer. That apart, the need for affording an opportunity of personal hearing has been reiterated by this Court in SRC Projects Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in 2008-09 [14] TNCTJ 220. 6. The third mistake committed by the respondent is in disbelieving the revised return or rather, summarily rejecting the revised return filed by the Selling Dealer before his Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the respondent is not the Assessing Officer of the Selling Dealer. Therefore, he has no jurisdiction to reject the revised return filed by the Selling Dealer as an after-thought. If at all it can be done only by the Assessing Officer of the Selling Dealer. 7. In the light of the above mentioned inhe....