Madras High Court
The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) vs Sri Vinayaga Agencies on 4 February, 2021
W.A.No.15 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.15 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.222 of 2017
1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Vadapalani Assessment Circle,
Chennai - 600106.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Palayamkottai Assessment Circle,
Palayamkottai. ...Appellants
Vs
Sri Vinayaga Agencies,
No.4/4B, Nergundram Pathai,
100 Feet Road, Vadapalani,
Chennai. ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order passed by the learned Judge in common order in W.P.Nos.2036 to
2038 of 2013 dated 29.01.2013.
For Appellants: Mr.Md.Shaffiq
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent: Ms.Aparna Nandakumar
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.15 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
We have heard Mr.Mohamed Shaffiq, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms.Aparna Nandakumar,
learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal, filed by the appellants, is directed against the
common order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.2036 to 2038 of 2013 dated
29.01.2013.
3. The writ petitions were allowed and the orders of assessment
were set aside and the respondent was permitted to avail the Input Tax
Credit (ITC). Against the impugned common order, the State had preferred
an appeal in W.A.No.4292 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court, by judgment dated 04.03.2020, has dismissed the writ appeal. The
operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"6. We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.15 of 2017
7. We are satisfied that prior to amendment
and substitution of proviso under Section 19(1) of
the Act, with effect from 29.1.2016, the period in
question before us, is covered by the pre-
amendment position of law and since the proviso
(1) to section 19, which is prior to 29.1.2016, only
requires the registered dealer namely, the
purchasing dealer to establish that the tax due on
such purchase has been paid by him in the manner
prescribes, this fact was duly proved by the
purchasing dealer in the present case and the
assessing authority himself has noted the said fact,
therefore, there was no question of denying the
input tax credit in the hands of the purchasing
dealer against out put dealer, in terms of 19(1) of
the Act, as it stood for the period in question
2009-2010. Such giving of input tax credit in the
hands of purchasing dealer, however does not
deprive Revenue authorities to proceed against the
selling dealer M/s Tvl.Classic Enterprises, to
recover the tax paid by the Purchasing dealer.
8. In the present case, for non-deposit of due
tax collected form the purchasing dealer
M/s.Vinayaga Agencies, the Revenue is therefore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.15 of 2017
free to hold enquiry against the selling dealer and
collect the Revenue from the selling dealer, which
money in the hands of selling dealer, is held in
trust for the State by the selling dealer. It is not the
case of the Revenue before us that the selling
dealer in the present case is a non- existent or a
ghost dealer. The identity and registration of the
selling dealer and the fact that he collected the tax
from the purchasing dealer in question are duly
proved on record and are not disputed.
9. In view of this legal position, we do not
have any doubt that the learned Single Judge was
perfectly justified in allowing the writ petition
filed by the Assessee directing the respondent to
allow the ITC in the hands of purchasing dealer
under Section 19(1) of the Act.
10. With these observations, the appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
CMP.No.26910 of 2019 is closed."
4. Since the impugned order, which is a common order, has been
upheld by the Division Bench and the said judgment would enure in favour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.15 of 2017
of the respondent in this appeal as well, the present writ appeal is dismissed,
by following the aforementioned decision. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
04.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Vadapalani Assessment Circle,
Chennai - 600106.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
Palayamkottai Assessment Circle,
Palayamkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.15 of 2017
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
W.A.No.15 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.222 of 2017
04.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
