ORDER 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent in TIN/33645701933/13-14, dated 05.06.2015 and quash the same. By the said order, the respondent has revised the assessment for the year 2013-2014 under Section 27 of TNVAT Act 2006. 2. The case of the petitioner firm is that they are carrying on business of trading in child food products. The said firm is regularly filing its monthly returns and paying the tax properly. For the assessment year 2013-2014, the petitioner has filed its return and paid the tax properly. While so, the respondent has issued a notice on 02.02.2015 stating that the monthly returns of the petitioner were scrutinized through the department websites and it is found that the petitioner has effected purchase of goods and claimed Input Tax Credit, but the consignor has not disclosed the transaction made with the petitioner firm in their monthly returns and not paid the tax. Therefore, the respondent proposed to reverse the input tax credit and levy tax and penalty. 3. While the situation stood thus, the petitioner has filed reply to the notice on 09.03.2015 stating that the petitioner has paid the tax to the consignor and therefore, there is no default on their part. The petitioner further stated that they have purchased the goods only after paying the tax properly and the petitioner enclosed the copy of purchase bills along with its reply. However, the respondent has passed the revised assessment order on 05.06.2015. Rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner and confirmed the proposal. The respondent by his revised assessment order, demanded tax and penalty. 4. The petitioner has purchased goods from the seller by paying tax and reported the same in Annexure I of its return. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to avail Input Tax Credit. It is further averred that the consignor (seller) failed to report the same in Annexure II of his return. It is not the fault of the buyer. Inspite of the said fact, the impugned order has been assessed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated earlier. 5. It is further averred that the consignor (seller) failed to report the same in Annexure II of his return. It is not the fault of the buyer. Inspite of the said fact, the impugned order has been assessed by the respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated earlier. 5. To back his averment, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced an unreported order made in W.P. (MD) No. 2036 to 2038 of 2013, Sri Vinayaga Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Ct), dated 29.01.2013, to state that in an identical case, this Court has allowed the claim of the petitioner therein. 6. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed on 05.06.2015. The Writ Petitioner filed Writ Petition on 02.09.2015 that is to say that he has come before this Court, after the statutory period of 60 days prescribed under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Act. Now, the alleged arrear claimed by the petitioner firm is revenue of the Government. Further, as per Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner and the petitioner has to file original invoice before the assessing authority for claiming the Input Tax Credit, but the petitioner has produced a Xerox copy of the invoice bills, which is not acceptable by the respondent. That apart, the petitioner has not preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Tirunelveli and therefore, he is not entitled to avail the tax. 7. I heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. A perusal of the records would show that at the time of purchasing the goods, admittedly, the petitioner has paid the tax to the seller, which is not under dispute. The reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner firm is denied Input Tax Credit just because the dealer/seller has failed to report the same before the respondent. The reason adduced by the respondent is unacceptable for the reason that when admittedly the petitioner firm has paid the tax, he cannot be made liable for the failure on the part of the seller to report the same to the respondent. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner cited supra is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The reason adduced by the respondent is unacceptable for the reason that when admittedly the petitioner firm has paid the tax, he cannot be made liable for the failure on the part of the seller to report the same to the respondent. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner cited supra is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the said judgment, in paragraph No. 9, it has been held as follows:- “9. Sub-Section (16) of Section 19 states that the Input Tax Credit availed is provisional. It, however, does not empower the authority to revoke the input tax credit availed on a plea that the selling dealer has not paid the tax. It only relates to incorrect, incomplete or improper claim of Input Tax Credit by the dealer. It is not so in these cases. In the present case, the petitioner-dealer, admittedly, has paid the tax to the selling dealer and claimed Input Tax Credit and that was accepted at the time when the self-assessment was made. Even the pre-revision notices and the orders under challenge fairly state that the petitioner-dealer had paid tax to the dealer. It is, therefore, for the department to proceed against the selling dealer for recovery of tax in the manner known to law. The provision under which the present has been initiated, namely, invoking sub-section (16) of Section 19, does not appear to be correct on the admitted facts as above. All the revision orders revising the Input Tax Credit on the admitted case of tax having been paid to the selling dealer, therefore, are found to be totally incorrect, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the TNVAT Act and Rules. As a result, all the orders are liable to be set aside.” 9. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court, following the order made in W.P. Nos. 2036 to 2038 of 2013, dated 29.01.2013, this Writ Petition is also liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.