2016 (10) TMI 13 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Input Tax Credit - discount/incentive received - sale of goods at a rate lower than the price shown in the VAT invoice - same self question decided by the court already - Held that - once this Court has already taken a view on the self same controversy by various judgments, and particularly when SLP has been dismissed by the apex court, this court is not inclined to take a different view than what has already been taken, particularly when no distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Merely because the Kerala High Court has taken a different view, is no good reason to come to a different conclusion - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the assessee based on VAT invoice.
- Disallowance of ITC by the Assessing Officer.
- Contention of Revenue regarding selling goods lower than the price on VAT invoice.
- Judicial precedent on the allowability of ITC as per VAT invoice.
- Interpretation of judgments by different High Courts.
- Dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the apex court.
- Consistency in the decisions of the court regarding ITC claims.

Analysis:
1. The petitions raised a common question regarding the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the assessee based on VAT invoices, where goods were sold at a lower rate than shown on the invoice due to discounts. The Assessing Officer disallowed the ITC, arguing that selling below the invoice price while claiming ITC was impermissible.

2. Both Appellate Authorities found the assessee's claim justified, allowing the ITC. The Revenue challenged this decision, leading to the disposal of all petitions through a common order due to the common question raised.

3. The court noted that previous judgments had consistently held that ITC is allowable as per the VAT invoice, regardless of the selling price. Reference was made to a specific case where the Revenue's petition was dismissed, and the apex court upheld this decision by rejecting the Special Leave Petition.

4. The court emphasized that when a view on a particular issue has been established through previous judgments, especially when the apex court has dismissed an appeal on the same matter, there is no basis to deviate from the established position. The absence of distinguishing features from the Revenue's counsel further supported maintaining the existing stance.

5. Despite attempts to differentiate the court's judgments and citing a conflicting decision from the Kerala High Court, the court upheld the consistent interpretation of ITC claims based on VAT invoices. The judgment highlighted that differing views in other jurisdictions do not warrant a departure from the settled position in the current court.

6. Ultimately, the court decided to adhere to its previous rulings and found no grounds to interfere with the Tax Board's order, leading to the dismissal of all petitions. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of precedent and consistency in interpreting tax laws, especially concerning the allowability of Input Tax Credit.