A. NOUSHAD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the respective standing counsel appearing for BSNL and MSTC.

(2.) IN so far as WP(C) No.30329 of 2008 is concerned, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P9, an order of assessment passed under Section 25 of the KVAT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) for the assessment years 2006- 2007. According to the petitioner, they are dealers in iron and scrap, registered under the Act. It is stated that the 13th respondent is an agent of BSNL for the sale of scrap. Being an agent of their Principals, 13th respondent will negotiate with prospective purchasers and if successful, will issue delivery orders such as Ext.P1 series. On that basis, BSNL will issue invoice, collect value and tax and on that basis, will deliver the materials sold.

(3.) PETITIONER says that subsequently, they made requests to the BSNL for issuing the tax invoice, a specimen copy of the request is Ext.P4. To that letter, they received Ext.P5 reply from the BSNL stating that in the delivery order, since tax is separately shown, benefit of Input Tax Credit could be claimed producing the delivery order. They also obtained Ext.P6 series of invoices from the second respondent. Although these invoices are not in Form 8A, still these invoices show that the tax has been collected. Similarly, 7th respondent also issued Ext.P7 invoice and second respondent also issued Ext.P8 and Ext.P8(a) certificates.