2018 (3) TMI 89 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Maintainability of petition - Input tax credit - Fleet Management Charges - Held that - this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition against the re-assessment order under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 directly cannot be filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by-passing the effective alternative remedies by way of Appeals available to the assessee under the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003 - petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Input Tax Credit
2. Fleet Management Charges
3. Ad hoc additions in declared turnover

Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Input Tax Credit: The petitioner challenged the re-assessment order under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003, citing a decision in a similar case. However, the court held that such challenges should be raised through available appeals under the KVAT Act, rather than directly through a writ petition. The court emphasized that repetitive reiteration of legal principles by constitutional courts is unnecessary, and appellate authorities should apply relevant judgments if applicable.

2. Fleet Management Charges: The petitioner argued that Fleet Management charges, already subjected to Service Tax, should not be included in the value of lease rentals for VAT levy under the KVAT Act, 2003. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of this argument, stating that doing so could prejudice either party. The court advised the petitioner to pursue available alternative remedies under the KVAT Act, 2003.

3. Ad hoc additions in declared turnover: The petitioner contested the ad hoc additions made by the Assessing Authority due to alleged low lease rentals declared. The court noted that the absence of maintaining a 'Vehicle Track Register' was cited as a reason for the additions. However, the court clarified that maintaining such a register is not a statutory requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to follow the proper appellate procedures under the KVAT Act, 2003.

In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of following established legal procedures and refraining from directly approaching the court in tax matters. The judgment highlighted the need for parties to utilize available appellate remedies and for authorities to apply relevant legal precedents judiciously.