TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chased goods from registered dealers under the GVAT Act. Input tax credit was claimed by the petitioners on the tax paid on such purchases in accordance with the provisions of the GVAT Act. 3. Input tax credit for assessment year 2013-14 came to be disallowed in the case of the petitioner on the basis of alleged negative cross check reports. It was alleged that the vendors of the petitioners had purchased goods from some vendors whose registration certificates had been retrospectively cancelled and that there were dues in the case of the vendors. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated 31.3.2018, by placing reliance upon section 11(7A) of the GVAT Act disallowed input tax credit in the case of the petitioners for the year 2013-14. It is the case of the petitioners that the negative cross check reports or assessment orders passed in the case of the petitioners were never provided to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the assessment order by way of a first appeal which came to be summarily dismissed on the ground of nonpayment of pre-deposit. The petitioners preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 6.9.2018, admitted the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers have a strong prima-facie case in their favour and, therefore, the demand of huge pre-deposit for admission of the first and second appeal by the first appellate authority and the Tribunal respectively, is unjustified. 4.2 In support of his submissions, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Shree Bhairav Metal Corporation v. State of Gujarat, [2015] 82 VST 324 (Guj), wherein the court had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for input tax credit on the alleged purchase made by it from M/s. Lucky Enterprises, now that the copy of the order passed in the case of Lucky Enterprises was available with the petitioner therein. It was, accordingly urged that the petition requires to be allowed by granting the reliefs prayed for in the petition. 5. Opposing the petition, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that insofar as the case of the vendor Ardor International Limited is concerned, on verifying the books and documents for the year 2013-14, it is found that the total tax liability was Rs. 122,40,61,930/- out of which a meagre amount of Rs. 7,09,79,684/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired details, no blame be laid at the door of the assessing authority. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 6. The sole question that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were justified in directing the petitioners to make pre-deposit in terms of the orders passed by them. 7. A perusal of the record of the case reveals that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has, after examining the transaction tree, observed that in case of certain dealers the sales appear to be of Cancelled Tin/Ab-initio Cancelled Tin. He has observed that in case of certain dealers who have sold goods to this dealer, there is absence of Tin movement of goods and as they are involved in only billing activities, their registrations have been cancelled ab-initio. Input tax credit cannot be taken in respect of purchases made from such dealers. Keeping in view the provisions of section 11(7A) of the GVAT Act, the Assessing Officer has held that as tax had not been paid earlier, the dealer is not entitled to input tax credit on such purchases. The Assessing Officer has worked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tated in the letter that almost the entire inter-State sales and total branch transfer transactions were of goods imported from outside the country. It is further stated in the letter that sales to Capital Traders are duly recorded in the books of account of M/s. Ardor International Limited and also assessed to tax in the assessment year 2013-14 passed under the GVAT Act. Though dues of Rs. 68,36,74,990/- have been raised in the assessment order passed under the GVAT Act for the year 2013-14, they are not relating to the sales of Capital Traders. 10. Thus, after the impugned orders came to be passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have come across material which establishes that insofar as two of the vendors are concerned, no dues were outstanding for the assessment year 2013-14. Insofar as the third vendor is concerned, that vendor has informed the assessee that none of the outstanding dues were in respect of the sales made in the case of the petitioners. 11. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of this court in the case of Shree Bhairav Metal Corporation v. State of Gujarat (supra), wherein it has been held thus:- "9.4 As observed earlier, the impugned ord....