2025 (1) TMI 730 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Reversal of Input Tax Credit on lubricant - jurisdiction to travel beyond the specific order of remand by the appellate authority - Rule 21(11) of UP VAT Rules - HELD THAT - On perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority in first round of litigation as well as the judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s Ram Dayal Harbilas 1979 (2) TMI 176 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , it is clear that the remand order for passing afresh order in accordance with law is an open remand order. The case in hand shows that the matter was not remanded by the first appellate authority with a specific direction as noted above and therefore, the order passed after remand by the assessing authority as well as the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified. The record further shows that once the lubricant became taxable item at the hand of the manufacturer and importer and for the trader it become non VATable goods, and once the item is declared as non VAT goods in the hand of the trader as revisionist is also a trader, the judgements cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist in M/s Mercury Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 1999 (12) TMI 829 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT LARGER BENCH , M/s Goodage Rubber Works 2003 (4) TMI 531 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and Indra Industries 2000 (1) TMI 44 - SUPREME COURT that the circular will influence the same, will be of no help to the revisionist. Further, the record shows that the revisionist, in its wisdom, has not challenged the validity of the circular dated 17.01.2014 before any competent court. Under the revisional jurisdiction, the validity of the circular cannot be tested. Conclusion - The court established that an open remand order allows for a fresh determination of issues without specific restrictions, and the classification of goods impacts their VAT status and ITC claims. Revision dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The judgment considered the following core legal questions:

Whether the tribunal was correct in not adjudicating the issue that the assessing officer did not have the jurisdiction to travel beyond the specific order of remand by the appellate authority.
Whether the assessing authorities were competent to examine and redetermine the issue of reversal of ITC on closing stock of lubricant, which had become final between the parties.
Whether the tribunal was correct in affirming the orders of the authorities below, applying the Commissioner's Circular, which is not binding on the assessee.
Whether the tribunal correctly held that ITC on the closing stock in lubricant was rightly reversed, ignoring Rule 21(11) of UP VAT Rules.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer Beyond Remand Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involved Section 28(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, and precedents related to the jurisdiction of assessing officers following appellate remand orders.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted the remand order as an open remand, allowing the assessing officer to conduct a detailed inquiry and pass an order in accordance with law.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the appellate authority did not issue specific directions, thus permitting the assessing officer to exercise discretion within the legal framework.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that an open remand order allows the assessing officer to reassess the case without being restricted by previous findings.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the revisionist's argument that the assessing officer exceeded jurisdiction but concluded that the remand order did not impose such limitations.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the assessing officer acted within jurisdiction, affirming the tribunal's decision.

Issue 2: Competency to Redetermine ITC Reversal

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue involved the interpretation of the remand order and the scope of authority under the UP VAT Act.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the remand order allowed for a fresh determination of the ITC issue, as it was an open remand without specific restrictions.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the remand order directed the assessing officer to decide the issue of ITC reversal after due inquiry.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that an open remand permits reevaluation of issues, including ITC reversal.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court addressed the revisionist's argument that the ITC issue was final but found that the remand order allowed for reconsideration.
Conclusions: The court upheld the tribunal's decision, affirming the assessing officer's competency to redetermine the ITC issue.

Issue 3: Application of Commissioner's Circular

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue involved the binding nature of the Commissioner's Circular on the assessee and its application to the ITC reversal.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the circular was applicable as the lubricant became non-VAT goods for traders, impacting the ITC reversal.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the circular classified lubricants as non-VAT goods for traders, thus affecting the ITC claim.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the circular's provisions, which influenced the reversal of ITC on lubricants.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the revisionist's argument against the circular's applicability but upheld its relevance based on the classification change.
Conclusions: The court affirmed the tribunal's decision, validating the circular's application to the case.

Issue 4: Reversal of ITC on Closing Stock of Lubricant

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue involved the interpretation of Rule 21(11) of UP VAT Rules and its impact on ITC reversal.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that the lubricant was classified as non-VAT goods for traders, justifying the ITC reversal.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the lubricant's classification change impacted its VAT status, affecting the ITC claim.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the classification and relevant rules, supporting the ITC reversal on closing stock.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court addressed the revisionist's reliance on Rule 21(11) but found the classification change decisive.
Conclusions: The court upheld the tribunal's decision, affirming the ITC reversal on the closing stock of lubricant.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The remand order for passing afresh order in accordance with law is an open remand order."
Core Principles Established: The court established that an open remand order allows for a fresh determination of issues without specific restrictions, and the classification of goods impacts their VAT status and ITC claims.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court affirmed the tribunal's decisions on all issues, supporting the jurisdiction of the assessing officer, the competency to redetermine ITC reversal, the application of the Commissioner's Circular, and the ITC reversal on the closing stock of lubricant.

The judgment comprehensively addressed each legal issue, applying the relevant legal framework and precedents to the facts of the case, and ultimately upheld the tribunal's decisions in favor of the Revenue.

← Previous