2016 (7) TMI 140 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Input tax credit - invisible loss during manufacturing - Held that - the assessing authorities are not justified in adopting uniform percentage as invisible loss and calling upon the dealer to reverse the input-tax credit availed of to that extent. Consequently all notices issued to the petitioner for reopening and all consequential order passed reversing the input-tax credit to the extent of either four percent or five percent or on ad hoc percentage stands set aside. However liberty is granted to the concerned assessing officer to issue appropriate show-cause notices to the petitioners clearly setting out under what circumstances they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after inviting objections proceed in accordance with law. - Decision in the case of Interfit Techno Products Ltd. 2015 (4) TMI 935 - MADRAS HIGH COURT followed. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions related to invisible loss in VAT Act.
2. Assessment of refund claims under Section 18(2) of the Act.
3. Validity of assessing authority's use of uniform percentage for invisible loss.
4. Procedure for assessing officer to follow in cases of refund claims.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of provisions concerning invisible loss in the VAT Act. The Court referred to a previous decision where it was emphasized that a dealer claiming refund under Section 18(2) must demonstrate that the claim is not restricted by any conditions in Section 19 of the Act. The assessing authority is required to conduct a fact-finding exercise to determine the loss of goods purchased against manufactured goods and ensure compliance with Section 19 restrictions, particularly Section 19(9).

2. The Court held that it is insufficient for a dealer to merely show payment of input tax on purchased goods used in manufacturing. The assessing officer must verify the representation made by the dealer to ensure it complies with the Act's provisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of examining the quantum of loss and the restrictions under Section 19 before granting any refund under Section 18(2) of the Act.

3. The Court specifically addressed the issue of the assessing authorities using a uniform percentage for invisible loss and directing dealers to reverse input-tax credit based on this percentage. It was held that such a practice is not justified. The judgment set aside all orders based on ad hoc percentages and granted liberty to the assessing officer to issue appropriate show-cause notices to dealers before revising or reversing any refund, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with the law.

4. Finally, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the assessing officer for fresh proceedings in line with the directions provided in the judgment. The decision highlighted the importance of following due process and conducting a thorough assessment before granting or reversing any refunds under the VAT Act. No costs were awarded in this matter, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.