9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 66 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxEntitlement to Input Tax Credit - suppression of turnover or not - Bogus dealer - genuine purchase or not - burden to prove for entitlement to claim input tax credit - HELD THAT - The transaction is not a bogus transaction or make believe transaction. Further, goods have been transported from Kustagi to Bengaluru as is evident from the documents produced by the assessee. Hence for the dis allowing of input tax by the AA and the FAA is without factual basis. There cannot be any dispute as to the burden cast on the assessee to establish the transaction to lay a claim for deduction of input tax by production of documents referred to supra. This Court is of the considered opinion that the assessee has discharged this burden in proving that transaction is a genuine transaction. In the case on hand, if M/s. Priya Traders has remitted the tax to the Department, assessee cannot be penalized. Therefore, there are no justification in interfering with the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. There are no infirmity of whatsoever by the Tribunal in arriving at a finding that the AA and the FAA were wrong in disallowing the input tax credit in favour of the assessee for the purchases made from M/s. Priya Traders - Sales Tax Revision Petition is dismissed.
Issues:
Validity of order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal regarding disallowance of input tax credit and excess stock turnover. Analysis: The case involved a Revision Petition filed by the State challenging an order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) regarding the disallowance of input tax credit and excess stock turnover by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Audit. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the FAA and AA, leading to the State's appeal. The State contended that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the previous orders and failed to consider the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) properly. The State emphasized that only tax collected by a selling dealer is eligible for input tax credit and argued that the burden of proof lies on the dealer to claim such deductions. The State further argued that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate Section 70 of the KVAT Act, which places the burden of proving any claim for deduction of input tax on the dealer. The State also raised concerns about the Tribunal's failure to discuss the entitlement of the assessee for input tax rebate based on the available materials, including the inspection report. The State relied on previous judgments to support its contentions and sought the Revision Petition to be allowed. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee supported the Tribunal's order, stating that once a purchase is made with proper documentation, the assessee can claim input tax based on the invoice value without concern for whether the dealer has paid the tax. The assessee argued that the burden to establish entitlement to claim input tax lies with the dealer, and in this case, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the claim. The counsel contended that the inspection report was incorrect and that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence. Upon considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, the Court examined the relevant provisions of the KVAT Act, specifically Sections 3, 70, and 77(2). The Court noted that the assessee had produced documents supporting the transaction's genuineness, including de-registration certificates, ledger accounts, and tax invoices from the supplier. The Court concluded that the burden of proof had been discharged by the assessee, establishing the transaction's authenticity. The Court also emphasized that if the supplier had remitted the tax to the Department, the assessee should not be penalized. The Court further highlighted that under the Act's scheme, there is no authority to penalize the assessee for the purchaser's non-remittance of tax. The Court referenced previous judgments to support its findings and concluded that the Tribunal had rightly held that the disallowance of input tax credit by the AA and FAA was unfounded. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Sales Tax Revision Petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision.
|
