T. S. Sivagnanam, J. - (1.) Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
(2.) The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, is engaged in the business of furniture and allied products. In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the Assessment Order passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for the Assessment year 2015-16. The respondent issued notice dated 21.12.2017 referring to an earlier notice dated 16.02.2017 and the replies given by the petitioner dated 20.03.2017, 05.04.2017 and 11.04.2017. Two defects were pointed out in the notice dated 21.12.2017, namely 1) There is a mismatch noticed in the Department Web portal; and 2) Stock variation was noticed at the time of inspection.
(3.) The respondent alleged that the purchase details of the petitioner and their claim for Input Tax Credit when verified with reference to the sellers sales details as in the annextures I and II, as shown in the Departmental website, there were mismatch of entries noted and consequently proposed to reverse the Input Tax Credit availed by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.8,46, 598/-. The petitioner filed their reply dated 10.01.2018. While denying the said allegation, the petitioner pointed out that they have duly furnished all particulars in their monthly returns along with relevant Annexures I and II, which shows sales as well as purchases effected during the relevant month. Further, they pointed out that the annexures were duly filled in on the basis of the particulars as found in the Tax Invoice containing the name of the dealer, their respective TIN numbers, the sale and purchase price, the input and output tax payable and the corresponding Input Tax Credit claimed. The petitioner further submitted that the payments were made to the sellers through banks and debited in their bank account and the purchases are genuine and claim of Input Tax Credit is also legal. The petitioner, to support their stand that Input Tax Credit cannot be reversed for the reasons assigned, relied on certain judgments of this Court in the case of Althaf Sales (P) Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner, 2012 50 VST 179 (Mad) and other decisions of this Court. Further, the petitioner stressed that for the alleged lapses on the part of the selling dealer in not declaring in their monthly returns the sales made to the petitioner, cannot be a ground to deny the Input Tax Credit on the petitioner's / purchasing dealer. Further, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of JKM Fabrics and Others in W.P.No.105 of 2016 etc., batch dated 01.03.2017, wherein the Court issued directions as to how and in what manner, the issue pertaining to mismatch should be dealt with.;