TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal and taxable turnover of Rs. 13,07,76,666/- on deemed assessment basis under Section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. Subsequently, the respondent issued a pre-revision notice dated 16.07.2014. In the said notice, two allegations have been made against the petitioner. The first allegation is that the petitioner had omitted to report the purchase value of Rs. 7,39,829/-. The other major allegation is that there has been a wrong availing of input tax credit. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 18.09.2014. The respondent was not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation and confirmed the proposal set out in the notice and directed the petitioner to pay the balance tax amount of Rs. 21,02,363....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rns need not be put against the petitioner herein. But this is only a minor part of the story. The major aspect revolves around the alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit. 6.The contention of the department is that the petitioner who is a dealer in cements and who availed trade discount from the manufacturer, did not adhere to the parameters laid down in Section 19(20) of TNVAT Act, 2006 r/w Rule 10(6)(b)(ii)(c) of TNVAT Rules,2006. In the impugned order, by way of sample, it is pointed out that the petitioner after purchasing to the tune of 200 bags of cement at the cost of Rs. 66,000/-, chose to sell the same for a lesser price of Rs. 64,051/-. In the impugned order, the invoice particulars have not been mentioned. But the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealers as well as not to disturb the tax already paid by the selling dealer" 10.These provisions were recently applied by the Madras High Court in W.P.No.37775 of 2015 (Kun Motor Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chennai) dated 20.01.2020. The learned Judge held as follows:- "8.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the above clarification is inspired from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer, in W.P.No.37775 of 2015 Cuddalore and another, 124 STC 586 (SCC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court following its earlier decision rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., 1996 101 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purchaser to the seller. 20. The aforesaid observations clearly support the contention of the learned Solicitor-General before us, namely, that the sale price which has been fixed by the Fertiliser (Control) Order is the only obligation of the purchaser under the agreement to pay the same and no other amount including subsidy could be included in the purchase price. In E.I.D. Parry (2000) 117 STC 457 (SC); (2000) 2 SCC 321, however, the court came to the conclusion that the aforesaid principle was not applicable because the planting subsidy was given to the cane growers as the time of delivery of sugarcane by them. "The planting subsidy was given by the appellants to the cane growers not by way of agrarian reforms or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cars and had received trade discount from the manufacturer from whom it had purchased the cars for retail sales at its show rooms. The trade discount which has been offered by the dealer is an incentive given by the manufacturer based on the performance of the Petitioner in the retail market. The trade discount offered by the manufacturer to the Petitioner does not in any manner enhance the taxable value of the motor cars sold by the Petitioner to the retail buyer at its show rooms." 11.Respectfully applying the ratio laid down above, I hold that the respondent without any basis had concluded that the petitioner has disturbed the tax component. It is certainly open to the manufacturer to reward the petitioner with trade discount and by ....