TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders for the year 2006-07 to 2013-14 respectively. Since the common issue arises in all these Writ Petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, they are non-banking Finance Company, engaged in financing activities, including funding for borrowers for purchase of assets required by the borrowers. The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter, referred to as 'TNVAT Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter, referred to as CST Act). 4. The petitioner's case is that, they provide financing by way of financial and operating lease and term loans to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....falls within the realm of Section 4 of the TNVAT Act, for the purpose of taxability. Therefore, while discharging the out put tax liability under Section 4 of the TNVAT Act, the petitioner is entitled to claim ITC under Section 4 (2) of the Act. "6. In 2007, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.05.2007, stating that the petitioner is not in possession of physical stock of goods, as they are effecting deemed sales by way of transfer of right to use the goods, which were not directly purchased by them. Hence, as per Rule 10 (3) (a) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007,they are not eligible for the input tax credit claimed by them. The petitioner submitted their reply, dated 21.06.2007. Gist of the reply is as hereunder:-"As regards your content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of transaction and stated that, the mismatch has resulted by wrong declaration by vendors, from whom, they have purchased assets to be leased by the petitioner, and requested for further verification and probe in respect of input tax credit claimed by them. After the reply, dated 06.05.2014, nothing happened for nearly 1 1/2 years, and a fresh notice was issued on 27.08.2015. 7. On perusal of the notice, dated 27.08.2015, it is clear that there is no reference to the earlier notice, dated 31.05.2007, petitioner's reply dated 21.06.2007, notice dated 29.4.2014 and the reply given by the petitioner, dated 06.05.2014. Onceagain, very same allegation, which was made in the notice, dated 31.05.2007 was made in the subsequent notice, dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition, since the transactions have to be examined as to whether they are transactions pursuant to the operating lease agreement, whether ownership of the goods continue to remain with the petitioner, and what is being transferred to the lessee is only the right to use the goods. In fact, this is the stand taken by the petitioner at the very first instance, while giving reply, dated 21.06.2007, to the notice dated 31.05.2007, the relevant portion of which has been quoted in the preceding para. The respondent has no explanation to offer, as to why, the matter was not taken to the logical end, and after issuance of the notice, dated 31.05.2007, there has been a long gap of more than 7 years before the next notice issued, dated 29.04.2014. Ev....