Judgment R. Sudhakar, J. 1. These revisions are filed under Section 60(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (for brevity, “TNVAT Act”) and Rule 14(13) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, dated 22.8.2013 passed in STA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012, raising the following questions of law: i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law? ii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that input tax credit had to be reversed invoking Section 19(9)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, when there is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the shortage was due to loss? iii. Whether the Tribunal is correct in concluding that the shortage due to weight difference comes under the category of loss of goods as contemplated under Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act? iv. Whether the Tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, is correct in ignoring the fact that the shortage in quantity was not found at the time of each purchase, but it was arrived at only at the end of the assessment year taking into consideration huge purchases and sales during the assessment year concerned? v. Whether the Tribunal is wrong in overlooking the fact that the shortage was only 0.00504% (in T.C.(R) No.33 of 2014) and 0.00435% (in T.C.(R) No.34 of 2014) when compared to the huge volume of purchases and sales which is very negligible in this trade? 2.1. In a nutshell the facts are as under: The assessment years involved are 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The petitioner is a dealer in Iron and Steel Products such as M.S. Rounds, TMT Bars and M.S. Wire and is a registered dealer on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mannady West Assessment Circle under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. 2.2. The petitioner is a dealer in Iron and Steel Products such as M.S. Rounds, TMT Bars and M.S. Wire and is a registered dealer on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mannady West Assessment Circle under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. 2.2. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer, Group V, Enforcement East and it was found on verification of the audited balance sheet that there was shortage of material to the extent of Rs.18,41,704/- (in T.C.(R) No.33 of 2014) and Rs.12,57,508/- (in T.C.(R) No.34 of 2014), for which the dealer has availed input tax credit at 4% amounting to Rs.73,668/- and Rs.50,300/- respectively, which the dealer is not eligible under Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The petitioner has not chosen to file the Office Notice dated 21.2.2011 (S.No.4 in the reference column of the Assessment orders), calling for objections for the proposed reversal of the input tax credit availed by the dealer. The dealer submitted its objections stating that the small difference in weighment is due to different weigh bridges and weighing machines, which is common in their trade and, therefore, the input tax credit availed by the dealer should not be reversed. 2.3. The above said objection was overruled by the Original Authority placing reliance on Section 19(9)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the TNVAT Act. The Original Authority held that the reason given by the dealer for shortage is routine, without factual evidence, and placing reliance on Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, he held that input lost while in storage also becomes ineligible for input tax credit. 2.4. The dealer preferred appeals against the assessment orders before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), who reversed the orders passed by the Original Authority and held that the provisions of Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, are not applicable to the present case, as the petitioner is only a dealer in Iron and Steel and not a manufacturer of Iron and Steel. 2.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department filed appeals before the Tribunal. The point for determination that was framed by the Tribunal was “Whether the input tax credit availed can be adjusted towards output in respect of goods which are not sold?”. 2.5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Department filed appeals before the Tribunal. The point for determination that was framed by the Tribunal was “Whether the input tax credit availed can be adjusted towards output in respect of goods which are not sold?”. The Tribunal, after referring to Section 19(9) of the TNVAT Act, allowed the appeals filed by the Department holding as under: “Admittedly the dealer is not manufacturer and he is only a trader in iron and steel. It is admitted fact that there is a shortage in weight. The dealer says that this shortage is due to weighing in different weighing machines. From this it is very clear that there is shortage at the time of purchase itself. It is not on the fault of State. Though the dealer purchased some lesser goods and sold as such, the goods shortage is presumed to be not sold. Further, the dealer ought to have claim ITR only on the purchase value of available goods because the dealers did not sold the entire quantity of goods purchased. Further, out put tax also to be varied due to sale of actual inputs. So, when calculating the out put tax on the inputs the same analogy should be applied while claiming of ITC. Therefore, the goods shortage due to weight different also termed as 'loss'. Though Section 19(9)(ii)(iii) not applicable to the dealer, Section 19(9)(i) is applicable from the facts of the present case. The Tribunal is final fact finding Authority. From the facts of this case, the reversal of ITC is correct Under Section 19(a)(i) and not Under Section 9(9)(ii). But, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner simply discussed the Section 9(9)(ii) and come to the conclusion that the above Section is not applicable to this case. In the light of the above discussion, this Tribunal come to the conclusion that the reversal of ITR is correct and the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner is not correct. Hence, the orders of Appellate Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.” 2.6. Challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, the present revisions are filed on the questions of law, referred supra. 3. We have heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. 4. Challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, the present revisions are filed on the questions of law, referred supra. 3. We have heard Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Jayaprathap, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below. 4. At the outset, we have to point out with great pain that the Original Authority, namely, Mr. A. Lakshmipathi, Assistant Commissioner (CT), Mannadi (West), has not thought it fit to understand as to whether the provisions of Section 19(9)(i) and 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act are applicable to the facts of the present case or not. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has also not applied its mind in determining the point of law involved in these cases. 5. Be that as it may, the issue is whether input tax credit can be availed by the dealer in a case where goods are not sold due to theft, loss or destruction, for any reason, including natural calamity. 6. Section 19(9)(i) and 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, ... read as under: “Section 19. Input tax credit: (9) No input tax credit shall be availed to a registered dealer for tax paid or payable at the time of purchase of goods, if such – i. goods are not sold because of any theft, loss or destruction, for any reason, including natural calamity. If a dealer has already availed input tax credit against purchase of such goods, there shall be reversal of tax credit; or ii. inputs destroyed in fire accident or lost while in storage even before use in the manufacture of final products.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner is a dealer. Therefore, Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner and it is Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act that will be applicable. We are not inclined to accept the technical plea of the petitioner that a wrong provision, namely, Section 19(9)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, has been quoted instead of Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act, as the facts clearly establish that it is a case which falls under Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act, which the Original Authority has failed to properly apply its mind. 8. 8. A reading of the Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act makes it evident that no input tax credit shall be availed by a registered dealer for purchase of goods, if such goods are not sold because of any theft, loss or destruction, for any reason, including natural calamity, and if the dealer has already availed input tax credit against purchase of such goods, there shall be reversal of tax credit. This reversal of input tax credit has been done by the Original Authority based on the surprise inspection conducted by the Enforcement Wing on verification of the records and on coming to know that the goods on which input tax credit has been availed have not been sold for reason that there is a shortage, for whatever reason. Section 19(9)(i) of the TNVAT Act clearly provides that if the goods are not sold for any reason contained therein, there shall be reversal of tax credit. 9. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the reversal of credit is only in respect of the goods not sold and, therefore, we find that the proceedings initiated by the Department, culminating in the order of the Tribunal, which is under challenge in these revisions, does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any question of law, much less substantial question of law, arising for consideration in these revisions and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs.