9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 225 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxBenefit of input tax credit under section 8 of HVAT Act, 2003 - Held that - Assessing Officer was not justified in declining the benefit of input tax credit only on the ground that the tax invoices did not contain the name of the buyer and also its TIN number. No doubt, non mentioning of the name and the TIN number can be a circumstance, but it cannot be held to be conclusively against the purchaser. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the State in Babu Verghese s case 1999 (3) TMI 628 - SUPREME COURT . was different. The question involved therein was validity of extension granted by the Bar Council of India to existing members of Kerala Bar Council (KBC) under proviso to Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and consequent validity of elections held by KBC during the extended term. - matter remanded back - Decision in M/s New Devi Grit Udyog, Raiseena, Gurgaon s case (2015 (12) TMI 182 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT)followed - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Entitlement to input tax credit under Section 8 of the HVAT Act, 2003. 3. Requirement of complete enquiry by the Assessing Authority before disallowing input tax credit. 4. Allowance of producing certificate in Form C4 in support of input tax credit claim. Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The court addressed the delay of 411 days in filing the appeal. Notice of the application was given to the respondents, and after hearing the counsel for both parties and considering the reasons stated in the application, the delay was condoned. The application was disposed of accordingly. 2. Entitlement to Input Tax Credit under Section 8 of HVAT Act, 2003: The appellant, a registered dealer under the HVAT Act and CST Act, engaged in the business of crushing stone builders into stone grit and dust, claimed entitlement to input tax credit. The court referred to the statutory provisions, including Section 2(w), Section 2(zl), Section 8(2), and Section 28(2) of the HVAT Act, as well as Rule 54(3) of the HVAT Rules. It was emphasized that the tax invoice issued to a VAT dealer showing the tax charged on the sale of invoiced goods is sufficient proof of the tax paid for the purpose of claiming input tax credit. The court concluded that the non-mentioning of the buyer's name or TIN number on the tax invoice, which is issued by the seller, cannot be held against the buyer. The buyer should not be penalized for the seller's non-compliance, and the benefit of input tax credit should not be declined on this basis alone. The court cited precedents from the Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court to support this view. 3. Requirement of Complete Enquiry by the Assessing Authority: The appellant argued that the Assessing Authority should have conducted a complete enquiry as prescribed under Section 8 before disallowing the input tax credit. The court agreed that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the tax invoices solely because they did not contain the buyer's name and TIN number. The matter required a thorough examination of the genuineness of the transaction, and the buyer should be allowed to produce evidence to justify the transaction. 4. Allowance of Producing Certificate in Form C4: The appellant contended that they should have been allowed to produce a certificate in Form C4 in support of their claim for input tax credit if the Assessing Authority had any doubts about the invoice. The court observed that the Assessing Officer should consider the matter afresh and not reject the tax invoice solely on the grounds of missing buyer details if the buyer can justify the genuineness of the transaction with sufficient evidence. Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of in the same terms as the case of M/s New Devi Grit Udyog, Raiseena, Gurgaon vs. State of Haryana and others. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration, ensuring that the tax invoices are not rejected solely due to the absence of the buyer's name and TIN number, provided the buyer can substantiate the genuineness of the transaction.
|
