2020 (6) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the circular dated 20.10.2011 issued by the first respondent and the consequential notice dated 20.02.2014 issued by the second respondent relating to the assessment year 2012-13, proposing to reverse the ITC claimed in respect of the alleged invisible loss, the petitioner has filed the respective writ petitions.   3. The learned counsel for both sides jointly submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by the decision of this Court in Interfit Techno Products Ltd. v Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai and another [(2015) 81 VST 389 (Madras)], wherein, it is held as follows: "62. In the light of the above conclusion, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any of the restrictions contained in Section 19 of the VAT Act. The Assessing Officer has to conduct an exercise by which it is to be ascertained as to whether the representation made by the dealer is justified and is not hit by any any of the restrictions and conditions contained in Section 19 and in particular Section 19(9) of the VAT Act.   (4) It is held that the Assessing Authorities are not justified in adopting uniform percentage as invisible loss and calling upon the dealer to reverse the input tax credit availed to that extent. Consequently, all notices issued to the petitioner for reopening and all consequential order passed reversing the input tax credit to the extent of either 4% or 5% or on adhoc per centage stand....