2015 (6) TMI 1201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inku Steel Industries, represented by its Proprietor Mavaram, challenging the impugned proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Guindy Assessment Circle, Chennai in TIN 33950906422/ 2012-2013 and 2011-12 respectively dated 22.5.2015 on the ground that the same are illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the ratio laid down by this Court in Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani I Assessment Circle,Chennai and another reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad)., wherein, this Court has clearly held that the Assessing Officer cannot reverse ITC claimed by the registered dealer on the ground that the registration certificates of the sellers have been cancelled. 3.1 Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....another copy of their objections and on receipt of such copies of objections, the respondent was directed to pass orders on merits. 3.4. Adding further, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently the petitioner filed copy of the objections along with annexures on 24.01.2015 for proper consideration of the respondent and the same were also acknowledged on 09.02.2015 by the respondent, indicating that the said objections along with annexures were received on 03.02.2015. 3.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that again the petitioner was issued with notice dated 27.02.2015 with respect to the assessment year 2012-2013, for which the petitioner submitted an additional reply on 16.03.2015. Inspite of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wer vested on the Assessing Officer to revoke the Input Tax Credit on the ground that the selling dealers have not paid tax or on the ground that registration certificates of the selling dealers have been cancelled. 5. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner has filed two objections. The first objection with respect to both assessment years dated 24.09.2014 were followed by detailed objections on 16.03.2015, taking a specific ground that it is not open to the respondent to reverse the claim of ITC on the ground that sellers registration certificates were cancelled. The petitioner has also substantiated its claim that they have eff....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red view, is contrary to the settled legal position, as laid down by this Court in Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Vadapalani I Assessment Circle,Chennai and another reported in [2013] 60 VST 283 (Mad)., wherein, it is held as follows:- " ...Sub-section (16) of Section 19(1) states that input-tax credit availed of is provisional. It, however, does not empower the authority to revoke the input tax credit availed of on a plea that the selling dealer has not paid the tax. It only relates to incorrect, incomplete or improper claim of input tax credit by the dealer. It is not so in these cases. In the present case, the petitioner-dealer, admittedly, had paid the tax to the selling dealer and claimed input tax cred....