2015 (4) TMI 1154 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of input tax credit and set off the CST against the purchase tax payable by it? - Held that - We had considered a number of contentions earlier and merely because new contentions or new arguments come to the mind of the counsel is not a ground to reopen the matter and refer the same to a larger Bench - We had delivered a judgment after considering all the arguments which were raised before us in those cases including those raised by Mr. B. Dabey who was appearing in those cases. Whether the sales are inter-state or intra-State is not for the Court to decide and the remedy before the petitioner is to approach the appellate authority - Petition rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for input tax credit and set off against CST, legality of impugned order and notice, entitlement to input tax credit, validity of judgment passed by the High Court, new arguments raised for reconsideration.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief against the impugned order and notice related to input tax credit and CST set off. The main issue was the entitlement to claim input tax credit and set off CST against purchase tax. The High Court previously rejected similar petitions, holding that petitioners were not entitled to claim benefits under Section 10 of the TVAT Act, 2004. The judgment was challenged in the Apex Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Taxes issued an Assessment Order and demand notice, leading to the current petition.

The High Court refused to entertain new contentions raised by the petitioner, stating that all previous arguments were considered and rejected. The petitioner's claim that the incident of sale took place in Tripura and hence entitled to input tax credit was deemed misconceived. The Court emphasized that CST is paid only on inter-State sales, not intra-State sales. The petitioner's attempt to reinterpret Section 10 of the TVAT Act was dismissed, and the Court highlighted the need for VAT payment for intra-State sales.

The Court reiterated that the petitioner can approach the appellate authority to establish sales as intra-State and claim input tax credit accordingly. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized that input tax credit is only available for taxes under the TVAT Act, not for CST or other taxes. The petitioner's plea for reconsideration based on new arguments was rejected, and the Court maintained that decisions won't be revisited for every new argument. The judgment was upheld, and the petitioner was advised to seek remedy through the appellate authority for further consideration based on the law laid down by the Court.

In conclusion, the High Court reaffirmed its previous judgment, emphasizing the limitations on claiming input tax credit and set off against CST. The petitioner was directed to pursue the matter with the appellate authority for a decision in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law.