PATEL WOOD WORKS Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN No. 33203440717/2010 -11 and quash the order dated 25.02.2015 and further direct the respondent to consider the claim of ITC as per Section 19(1) of the TNVAT Act, in terms of the decisions of this Hon'ble Court reported in, 50 VST 179,, 60 VST 283 and also in W.P. No. 9265 of 2013 dated 06.11.2014.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on two grounds:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also contend that the authority failed to take into consideration that the petitioner/purchaser as well as the seller has got officially authorized godowns in the Tuticorin Port yard itself and the purchase and sale culminated in the Tuticorin Port yard itself and hence, there is no question of production of way bill or Transfer bill. Without taking into consideration the vital aspect that sale is effected in one and the same place, the authority has issued impugned order. Further, according to him, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the fact. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.