ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
These revisions are filed challenging the common order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax Additional Appellate Tribunal, Palakkad in T.A.(VAT)Nos.1477/2013 and 1478/2013, whereby the said appeals filed by the petitioner herein were rejected.
2. It appears that the petitioner had claimed input tax credit amounting to ₹57,697/- for the period November, 2011 to March, 2012 and ₹37,102/- for the period April, 2012 to August, 2012 for the purchase of rubber for the respective periods from Ottappalam Taluk Rubber Marketing Co-operative Society. The Assessing Authority rejected the claim for the reason that the seller-Society has not disclosed sale in its monthly returns.
3. The orders were challenged in appeals and the appellate authority dismissed the appeals on the ground that the element of sale by the Society was not proved. It was also found that the mandatory delivery note in Form 15 which is necessary for transport of rubber, a commodity notified under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act, was not produced by the petitioner. It was aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed the appeals before the Tribunal, which were dismissed by Annexure C orders, which are impugned before us.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. The sheet anchor of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that they had produced the invoices and that a similar case was allowed by the first appellate authority in Annexure D order.
6. The above contentions were refuted by the learned Government Pleader, who also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Haji . v. State of Kerala (ILR 2012(4) KER 87).
7. We have considered the submissions made.
8. The fact that rubber is a commodity notified under Section 46(3) of the KVAT Act is not in dispute. Such a notified commodity could not have been transported in the absence of delivery note in Form 15. Admittedly, the delivery notes were not produced before any one of the authorities. It is also seen that the sale in question which is allegedly covered by 24 sale invoices for the former period and 20 invoices for the latter period were not reflected in the books of accounts of the seller- society. This, therefore, means that the Society would not have, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, remitted tax, enabling the petitioner to claim the benefit of input tax.
9. Yet another aspect of the matter is that, though the petitioner had produced the invoices as claimed by him before the appellate authority, the genuineness of the invoices were not substantiated,r by producing his books of accounts. As held by this Court in the judgment noticed above, law requires strict compliance of the procedural formalities, specified for claiming the benefit of input tax. Insofar as this case is concerned, the above facts indicated by us show that the factum of sale could not be established. In such circumstances, we agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of input tax is not substantiated. We do not therefore find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.
The revisions are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE