TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 902
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 2006, is engaged in the business of furniture and allied products. In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the Assessment Order passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for the Assessment year 2015-16. The respondent issued notice dated 21.12.2017 referring to an earlier notice dated 16.02.2017 and the replies given by the petitioner dated 20.03.2017, 05.04.2017 and 11.04.2017. Two defects were pointed out in the notice dated 21.12.2017, namely 1) There is a mismatch noticed in the Department Web portal; and 2) Stock variation was noticed at the time of inspection. 3. The respondent alleged that the purchase details of the petitioner and their claim for Input Tax Credit when v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner, cannot be a ground to deny the Input Tax Credit on the petitioner's / purchasing dealer. Further, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of JKM Fabrics and Others in W.P.No.105 of 2016 etc., batch dated 01.03.2017, wherein the Court issued directions as to how and in what manner, the issue pertaining to mismatch should be dealt with. 4. So far as the stock variation is concerned, the petitioner referred to the inspection done by the Sales Tax Department on 23.09.2015 to 28.09.2015 and pointed out that because of the huge quantity of items, it is impossible to take stock correctly and accurately in one day. Further it is stated that the inspecting officials arrived at a stock value based on as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the respondent and there is no finding with regard to the penalty, which has been imposed. 6. The respondent in their counter affidavit reiterated the stand taken in the impugned Assessment Order and submit that wherever reconciliation could be done, has been done and benefit has been granted to the dealer and when the TIN numbers of the selling dealer could not be verified as the petitioner has not produced details, the respondent has rightly denied the Input Tax Credit in respect of those transactions. Further, the petitioner, who has not objected the stock difference noticed at the time of inspection, cannot challenge the equal addition now made in the order as well as levy of penalty. Thus, the respondent, in effect, state that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as held by this Court in Sri Vinayaga Agencies Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani [60 VST 283]. Therefore, the said finding is unsustainable in law. The respondent is under a wrong impression that the decisions relied on by the petitioner will apply only to the parties to the litigation. This Court has taken such a view because while issuing the notice dated 21.12.2017, there is such an observation made by the respondent in the first paragraph of the notice. This is an incorrect way of reading a judgment. Ratio decidendi of a particular judgment or oder has to be taken note of and the respondent cannot state that it will be applicable only to the parties inter se in the said order. Thus, applying the decision in Sri Vinayaga Agenci....