2021 (7) TMI 995 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - escaping of turnover - refund the excess Input tax credit - HELD THAT - The impugned order at Ext.P4 has considered this aspect and it has been observed by the rectifying authority that the petitioner/dealer has failed to produce the invoices and had admitted that the suppliers failed to upload the invoices and therefore the tax was not remitted to the exchequer and hence the impugned tax credit came to be rejected. Escaped turn over - HELD THAT - The same point was considered in the rectification order with a finding that the turn over taken for assessment was only in respect of Form No.10 relating to the traders. The turn over of Form No.10B was not taken in the order of assessment and so there is no question of giving credit of payment as per Form No.10B. With these reasons by holding that there is no mistake to be rectified under Section 66 of KVAT Act, 2003, the rectification application so far as these two aspects is concerned, came to be rejected. Consideration of both these aspects which are sought to be urged before this Court would certainly require this Court to record a finding of fact by examining the relevant documents. This Court, if it choses to dwell on these aspect will have to examine whether the petitioner had produced invoices or had failed to produce those invoices in order to ascertain whether rejection of input tax credit was according to law or otherwise. In the same manner scrutiny of Form Nos.10 and 10B will be required to be undertaken by this Court - the petitioner has alternate and more efficacious remedy of approaching the appellate authority in the matter. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting rectification application for assessment year 2012-2013 and assessment order for the same year.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the rectification application and the assessment order for the year 2012-2013. The petitioner argued that the disallowance of excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) was incorrect as the assessing officer had assured to consider the facts provided by the petitioner but failed to do so. The petitioner also pointed out errors in the total sales turnover and work contracts, which were not properly considered. The Government Pleader contended that the scope of writ jurisdiction is limited and suggested filing an appeal for further remedy due to the complexity of examining voluminous data.

The High Court considered the submissions and found that the assessing officer's direction to refund the excess ITC was based on the petitioner's failure to produce invoices, leading to the rejection of the tax credit. Regarding the alleged escaped turnover, it was noted that the turnover from Form No.10B was not accounted for in the assessment order, justifying the rejection of the rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The Court emphasized that examining these aspects would require a detailed factual analysis, not suitable for writ jurisdiction, and suggested availing the statutory remedy of filing an appeal.

The petitioner referred to a judgment in another case but the Court clarified that the situation in the present case did not warrant a judicial inquiry into the exercise of jurisdiction under the KVAT Act. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court advised the petitioner to pursue the appellate authority for a more effective remedy. Additionally, the Court directed the appellate authority to consider the time spent on the writ petition for condonation of delay if an appeal is filed challenging the assessment order.