M/S R.K. Plywood Traders vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Court No. - 1 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 22 of 2016 Revisionist :- M/S R.K. Plywood Traders Opposite Party :- Commissioner Of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Trapti Gupta,Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. The present revision has been filed against the judgement & order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench - I, Ghaziabad in Second Appeal No. 553 of 2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, in which following questions of law have been framed:- "(A) Whether the authorities below as well as the Tribunal are legally justified in law in refusing the claim of the revisionist made against the tax invoices, which itself is a proof, that the goods were tax paid, then than and the revision is entitled to get the benefit of input tax credit? (B) Whether the benefit of input tax credit can be refused to the revisionist on the ground that the revisionist has affected the purchases against the tax invoices from a dealer whose registration was cancelled, ignoring the fact that the said dealer was registered for certain period and the revisionist has effected the purchases from that dealer bonafidely against the tax invoices issued by the selling dealer and certain payment has been made through Bank. (C) Whether the claim of the revisionist with regard to the input tax credit can be reversed on the ground that the purchases are made from a dealer whose registration was cancelled whereas the payment has been made through Bank and the said dealer whose registration was cancelled has filed the monthly return (Form - 24) showing the transaction for the month of Jan & Feb 2013. (D) Whether in any view of the matter the revisionist can be held guilty of any offence if so committed by selling dealer, holding the revisionist that he had acted fraudulently while claiming the input tax credit on the basis of tax invoices on which the tax was paid. (E) Whether in any view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below can sustain in the eyes of law." Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a registered dealer and is carrying on business of purchase and sale of plywood items. In the normal course of business, plywood items were being purchased from two firms, namely,

Satyam Trading Company and Kansal Trading Company, in whose favour registration was granted and being registered dealers, the purchases were made and all the transactions were made through the banking channel, but still the input tax credit, as claimed by the applicant, has wrongly been disbelieved by the Assessing Officer, which was partly allowed by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal has partly affirmed the order of the first appellate authority, but has rejected the claim of ITC of the goods purchased from Kansal Trading Company. He prays for allowing the revision. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the purchases have been made from the unregistered dealer and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of ITC of the applicant. He submits that no question of law arises in the present revision and prays for dismissal of the revision. The Court has perused the records. It is not in dispute that purchases made from Kansal Trading Company are in dispute. According to the applicant, the purchases have been made after issuing of tax invoices and the payments were made through banking channel. The applicant has also tried to bring on record, for the first time, certain documents referring to be as Form - 24, along with Form - 1, to justify the purchases being made from the registered dealer. On the pointed query to the counsel for the applicant as to whether these documents were part of record of the authorities below, the answer was in negative. The Tribunal, being the last court of facts, had recorded a finding of fact in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order, which reads as under:- "