2016 (12) TMI 69 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Denial of benefit of input tax credit - the Petitioner paid purchase tax under Section 3(2) of KVAT Act on the purchase of sand from unregistered dealers - the petitioner has not filed any revised return either within the prescribed period of 6 months or even thereafter and the claim for input tax credit is made for the first time only after the re-assessment proceedings were concluded - Held that - the Tribunal has rightly held that as per the provisions of Section 35(4) read with the decision of this Court in the case of CENTUM INDUSTRIES 2015 (10) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , no input tax credit would be available as claimed by the assessee - the contention raised that the matter is pending before the Apex Court against the decision of the Centum Industries case and therefore this Court may not conclude on the question of law because the issue is already covered by the decision of this Court and it is not the case of the assessee that the Apex Court has stayed the operation of the decision of this Court. So far as the second contention for claiming tax credit though no reference whatsoever is made by separately showing the amount of tax in the Bills or tax invoice. Petition dismissed - decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of input tax credit to the petitioner.
2. Disallowance of deduction of tax element in works contract receipts.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised questions regarding the disallowance of input tax credit under the KVAT Act for purchasing sand from unregistered dealers and the disallowance of deduction of tax element in works contract receipts. The counsel argued that the issue is not concluded as per a previous court decision and that the outer limit of 6 months for filing a revised return is procedural. The court referred to Section 35(4) of the KVAT Act, which allows for a revised return within 6 months in case of omissions or incorrect statements. Since the petitioner did not file a revised return within the specified period, the claim for input tax credit was rightly denied by the Tribunal.

2. The second issue pertained to claiming tax credit without specifying the tax amount separately in the invoices. The counsel conceded that a previous court decision covered this issue. The court referred to Section 9 of the Act, which requires tax to be collected separately and accounted for. The court cited a previous case where it was held that invoices must show the tax amount separately for deduction purposes. The court dismissed the revision petitions, stating that penal provisions for incorrect tax invoices do not allow dealers to claim deductions without proper documentation. The Tribunal's decision against the assessee was upheld based on previous legal interpretations.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions as no new legal questions arose from the issues raised, and the decisions were in line with previous court rulings.