TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he file of the respondent under the provisions of Tamill Nadu Vat Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'VAT Act 2006' ), deals with iron and Steel Scraps. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order of assessment dated 27.02.2015. 3. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.08.2014, based on an inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing Officials on 03.03.2014. It is alleged that during the course of inspection, certain defects were found, which pertains to the assessment for the year 2011-12,viz. difference in the claim of ITC while verifying the Annexure-I of the dealer with that of Annexure-II of the other end dealer i.e., selling dealer. The details thereof were all enclosed, from which it is seen that three of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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)]. 7. 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 the said case, it was held that the circular issued by the Commissioner clearly stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ES (cited supra), 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 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 ....