Shree Laxmi Jewellery Ltd. Vs State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)
HC held that the Tribunal committed serious error in holding that Section 27(4) of the TNVAT Act would stand attracted. We say so for more than one reason. Firstly, the appeal filed by the revenue was not on the said ground, the only to assist the penalty under Section 27(3) of the TNVAT Act. Consequently, the Tribunal ought to have considered the vital fact that for Section 27(4) of the TNVAT Act to stand attracted the assessee’s case revision brought under Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act. In other words, the Tribunal should record a finding that there has been wrongful availment of ITC or the assessee has produced false bills, vouchers, declaration certificate or any other document with a view to support his claim of input tax credit. So far as the first aspect is concerned, the assessee filed a revised return voluntarily, made a claim that input tax credit. This scheme was rejected on a technical ground that it is beyond the time limit stipulated under Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act. There is no allegation that the assessee produced false bills, vouchers, declaration certificate or any other document with a view to support the claim. We say so because there is no such allegation in the assessment order. Furthermore, the claim made by the assessee was outrightly rejected by the Assessing Officer as time barred and therefore, there is no allegation that the assessee had wrongly availed input tax credit . Thus, both the contingencies e TNVAT Act do not stand attracted in the assessee’s case. In such circumstances, sub-section (4) of Section 27 of the TNVAT Act can never be applied since the said section would apply only if an order has been passed under Section 27(2) of the TNVAT Act holding that either the assessee has wrongly availed input tax credit or he has produced false documents to support his claim of input tax credit. Thus, the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order and more particularly going beyond the grounds raised by the revenue before it. Consequently, the High Court overturned the Tribunal’s ruling, reinstating the Appellate Deputy Commissioner’s order and siding with the assessee. The judgment highlighted procedural errors and restored the initial appellate decision, thus ruling in favor of Shree Laxmi Jewellery Ltd.
