Pranab Kumar Deb, (Chairman) - (1.) THE present application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 has been filed, challenging the order dated November 1, 2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bally Circle whereby the prayer for input -tax credit was rejected. The petitioner, as disclosed in the application, purchased goods worth Rs. 40,83,300 from South Eastern Railway on auction after paying tax. After purchase of the goods on auction, South Eastern Railway issued sale release order containing all the particulars, i.e., date of sale (date of auction sale), sale order number and date, name and address of selling dealer (South Eastern Railway), full description of goods sold, quantity or number of goods sold, value of the goods sold and rate and amount of tax charged.
(2.) THE petitioner submitted return, claiming input -tax credit to the tune of Rs. 1,63,332 under section 21 of the VAT Act. Claiming that sale release order issued by South Eastern Railway was not to be equated with tax invoice, the prayer for input -tax credit was rejected. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ganguli has submitted that in view of bona fide purchase of goods on auction from South Eastern Railway, as evidenced by the sale release orders, the prayer for rejection of input -tax credit was not tenable in the eye of law. It is submitted that in forming an opinion that sale release order was not to be equated with tax invoice, the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax as well as the appellate authority failed to appreciate that in view of issuance of sale release order incorporating all the particulars, as required under rule 91 of the VAT Rules, 2005, there should not be any logic in rejecting the claim for input -tax credit. Purchase of the articles from South Eastern Railway not having been disputed, the petitioner is entitled to have input -tax credit, as urged by Mr. Ganguli. The case of Prabir Ranjan Roy v. Commercial Tax Officer, Jalpaiguri Charge reported in, [2009] 26 VST 172 (WBTT);, [2009] 53 STA 342 has been cited by Mr. Ganguli to vindicate his stand that if after verification of the purchase transactions it is found that the transactions are genuine, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of input -tax credit.
(3.) THE respondents have taken the stand that the dealer is required to produce original tax invoice in order to substantiate its claim for input -tax credit in terms of the provisions laid down in sub -section (5) of section 22 of the VAT Act, 2003. Tax invoice not having been produced at any stage of the proceeding, the petitioner is not entitled to claim of input -tax credit, as contended by Mr. Majumdar representing the respondents.;