2026 (7) TMI 1338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xation Department. I have also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. 2. The issue involved in the instant proceedings appears to be squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Plasto Moulding Vs. State of Assam and 3 Others reported in 2024: GAU-AS:7506-DB wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court accepted the proposition of law laid down by the learned Delhi High Court in the case of On Quest Merchandising India Private Limited Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11286. 3. It is pertinent to take note of that the learned Delhi High Court in the said case i.e. On Quest Merchandising India....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment can proceed under section 40A of the DVAT Act." 4. From the above quoted paragraph, it is apparently clear that the Delhi High Court while reading down the expression "dealer or class of dealers" opined that the Department is precluded from invoking Section 9(2)(g) of the DVAT to deny ITC to a purchasing dealer who has bona fide entered into a purchase transaction with a registered selling dealer who had issued a tax invoice reflecting the TIN number. It was also mentioned that in the event, the selling dealer had failed to deposit the tax collected by him from the purchasing dealer, the remedy for the Department would be to proceed against the defaulting selling dealer to recover such tax and not deny the purchasing dealer the ITC.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der was passed on 30.09.2023 that the Petitioner was held to be liable to pay tax of an amount of Rs. 2,08,802/-, interest of Rs. 2,16,632/- and penalty of Rs. 20,880/-. 9. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner filed an application for rectification on 29.01.2024 thereby again explaining that there was no dues to be paid by the Petitioner inasmuch as there was no claim of excess ITC. The Respondent Authorities thereupon rectified the order dated 31.12.2023 vide an order dated 10.04.2024 whereby all other contentions of the Petitioner were accepted except the claim of the Input Tax Credit by the Petitioner on the goods purchased from the Respondent No. 4 which was rejected. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been fil....