Tvl.Adha Impex, v. The Commercial Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.06.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.7361 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.8023 of 2017 Tvl.Adha Impex Represented by its M.Rasheed Ahmed No.24/30G, Achari street, Wahab Market 1st Floor, Pernambut - 635 810

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Commercial tax Officer, Gudiyatham (West)

...Respondent

Prayer: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in order dated 31.08.2016 in TIN: 33964343660/2015-16 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondent : Mr.K.Venkatesh, Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of assessment dated 31.08.2016 passed in respect of the assessment year 201516.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The Assessing Authority has passed the impugned order on the reason that the petitioner effected purchase from the dealers whose registration certificates were cancelled.

4. The learned Government Advocate, on instruction, fairly submitted that such cancellation of registration has taken place with retrospective effect. Therefore, it is evident that on the date of purchase made by the petitioner those dealers were having the valid registration. The issue as to whether the Assessing Authority can rely on the cancellation of the registration certificates retrospectively for imposing tax and penalty has already been considered by this Court in favour of the petitioner and one such order is passed in W.P.No.6993 of 2017 dated 22.03.2017, wherein it is held as follows:

3. Since the issue involved in this writ petition is similar to one decided in a case reported in (2013) 59 VST 256 (Mad) Jinsasan Distributors v. Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Chintaripet Assessment Circle, Chennai, affirmed by the Divisional Bench of this Court reported in (2016) 96 VST 315 (Mad) Assistant Commissioner (CT), Broadway Assessment Circle, Chennai v. Bhairav Trading Company, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the Input Tax Credit cannot be denied to the Assessee, only on the ground that the registration certificate of the dealers was cancelled with retrospective effect.

4. Considering the fact that the issue involved herein is already decided in favour of the petitioner and considering the fact that the impugned order of assessment has been passed only for the reason that the purchase from the dealers whose registration was cancelled later with the retrospective effect, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed by applying the above decision of this Court, in (2013) 59 VST 256 (Mad) Jinsasan Distributors v. Commercial Tax Officer (CT), Chintaripet Assessment Circle, Chennai and (2016) 96 VST 315 (Mad) Assistant Commissioner (CT), Broadway Assessment Circle, Chennai v. Bhairav Trading Company.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

4. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commercial tax Officer, Gudiyatham (West) +1cc to Mr.Adithiya Reddy, Advocate Sr.40801 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.40926 W.P.No.7361 of 2017 srg 15/06/2017