TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ['Act' for short] assailing the judgment of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru dated 15.12.2017 passed in STA Nos.1989 to 1991/2013 Connected with STA Nos.511 to 513/2015 relating to the tax periods September to November 2010. 2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Act and also registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ['CST Act' for short]. The assessee is engaged in trading of iron and steel goods. Relating to the tax periods, September, October, November, 2010, the assessee has filed monthly returns in VAT Form No.100 and also filed Annual Returns in Form No.240 claiming the input tax benefit under the Act against the purchase of goods from the registered dealers. The asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeal in disallowing the entire turnover for the input tax credit mainly on the ground that the M/s. Mark Trading Company and M/s. Master Trading Company, the registered dealers had not paid the amount to the Government. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue justifying the impugned judgment submitted that the so called dealers M/s. Mark Trading Company and M/s. Master Trading Company are found to be not genuine as per the report of the Enforcement Officers as well as the visit made by the Assessing Authority himself. Further, the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices for transportation of the goods were not the goods vehicles to transport iron and steel. The details of the status of the vehicle registration number mentioned in the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dlord of the building, it was found that the said place was not rented to M/s. Masters Trading Company. Further, the Enforcement Officer has visited the business premises as well as the residential address declared and found that no such dealer existed in the registered place of business and in the residential address shown in the VAT-1 application for registration, for the last two years. Further, the Assessing Authority has visited the business premises, address shown of both the dealers M/s. Mark Trading Company and M/s. Masters Trading Company and noticed that one Sri.Kanvaram, proprietor of M/s.Krishna Electrical and Hardware with Tin No.29690771995 was carrying on business since 20.09.2007 at the business premises declared by M/s. Mas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....52 0720 Piaggio Ape Van 18. KA 02 C 9550 Van 19. KA 14 4758 Van 20. KA 02 A 5589 Auto Rickshaw 21. KA 02 P 4718 Santro Car 22. KA 19 4139 Light Goods Vehicle 23. KA 01 D 5073 Motor Vehicle 24. KA 01 D 5078 Motor Vehicle 25. KA 02 D 8383 Piaggio Ape Van 26. KA 16 7268 Jeep 27. KA 01 B 1244 Tipper Truck 28. KA 01 B 2067 Van 29. KA 01 Z 1256 Ford Ikon 30. KA 01 Z 0593 Maruthi Car 31. KA 01 Z 2120 Maruthi Car 32. KA 04 MG 3958 Maruthi Van 33. KA 51 M 4973 Maruthi Swift 34. KA 01 D 4143 Non Transport Vehicle 35. KA 41 0105 Maruthi Van 36. KA 52 0720 Minidor Pick....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by the petitioner, the said six firms were de-registered, whereabouts of the said firms was also not known and efforts have been made to trace the said six firms. However, the said six dealers are not available. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner-firm has made a transaction with the bogus and fake dealers. On the basis of the invoices issued by the said bogus and fake dealers, the petitioner-firm claims input tax rebate. The transaction between the petitioner-firm and the said six firms clearly disclose that the purchase has been made by cash payment, except one or two payments made through cheques. On the basis of the fake tax invoices, the petitioner-firm availed the input tax rebate. Under Section 10(4) of the Act, no deduction....