Pranab Kumar Deb (Chairman) - (1.) THIS instant application has been filed, challenging the order dated August 13, 2010 whereby input -tax credits against purchases were disallowed. The petitioner, as disclosed in the application, purchased iron scraps from South Eastern Railway and Eastern Railway for Rs. 5,05,000 and Rs. 8,000. In view of purchases of iron scraps on auctions sale, release orders were issued, incorporating the date of auction sale, date of delivery, name of the selling dealer, description of the goods, quantity and number of goods, value of the goods, rate and amount of tax charged, etc. It is claimed that rejecting the input -tax credit under section 22, the assessment for the four quarters ending on March 31, 2007 had been done. Challenging the rejection of the input -tax credit, the petitioner has now approached this Tribunal.
(2.) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ganguly has submitted that in rejecting the prayer for input -tax credit, the respondents have failed to appreciate that the petitioner had lawfully purchased the iron scraps on auction for valuable consideration. VAT had also been paid in respect of the articles purchased by it. In the sale release order the authorities disclosed everything that were required to be furnished in the tax invoice. In view of furnishing all the details relating to date of sale, date of delivery, name and address of the selling dealer, T.C. of the selling dealer, name and full address of the purchasing dealer, full description of the goods sold, quantity or number of goods sold, value of the goods sold, rate and amount of tax charged, etc., the respondents ought to have treated sale release order at per with tax invoice, as urged by Mr. Ganguly. It is contended that simply because of the word "tax invoice" had not been recorded, the respondents had arbitrarily rejected the prayer for input -tax credit. Mr. Ganguly has cited the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji reported in : (1987) 66 STC 228 (SC); (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC); (1987) 62 Comp Cas 370 (SC); (1987) 2 SCC 107, and the case of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Corporate Division reported in, (1998) 32 STA 73 (WBTT), to vindicate his stand that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred and technicalities should not always stand in the way of rendering substantial justice. It is the substance that matters and not the form, as contended by Mr. Ganguly.
(3.) REFERRING to sub -rule (1) of rule 91 of the Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, Mr. Ganguly has submitted that it is incumbent on the part of every dealer to issue a tax invoice referred to in sub -section (1) of section 64 when he sells taxable goods. It is submitted that despite non -issuance of such tax invoice, no action was taken against South Eastern Railway and Eastern Railway. What is more shocking, according to Mr. Ganguly, is the attitude of respondents in penalizing the petitioner for non -furnishing of tax invoices. Since all the Informations as required under tax invoice had been furnished, the authorities should not have disallowed the claim for ITC on such flimsy grounds, as argued by Mr. Ganguly.;