9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 42 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of reassessment order - excess input tax credit disallowed - time limitation - disallowance on the ground that same was not claimed in VAT 100 returns and the revised returns were filed belatedly beyond the period of 6 months prescribed under Section 45(4) of the Act - HELD THAT - The respondent, for the tax period i.e. from April 2008 to March 2009, has reversed the input tax credit for an amount of ₹ 91,98,450/- @ 2.26% on stock transfer outward. The credit of excess input tax reversal cannot be rejected on the ground of non-filing of the revised return within the due date. It is pertinent to note that Section 35(4) of the Act which provides the revised return within a period of 6 months from the end of relevant tax period, is incorporated in the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2012 i.e. subsequently. The time limit prescribed for revised return does not apply to the case of the respondent as the tax period pertains to April 2008 to March 2009. Therefore, the revised return filed by the respondent cannot be said to be belated return in the light of Section 35(4) of the Act which has no application to the fact situation of the case. It cannot be held that Tribunal has failed to decide a question of law or has erroneously decided a question of law - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Disallowance of excess input tax credit claimed by respondent. 3. Interpretation of provisions under Section 35(4) of the Act. 4. Applicability of Division Bench judgment in MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. case. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeals by both parties. The respondent, a public limited company engaged in various businesses, had claimed excess input tax credit for the tax periods from April 2008 to March 2009. The re-assessment order disallowed the excess credit due to late filing of revised returns beyond the prescribed period under Section 45(4) of the Act. 2. The First Appellate Authority allowed the excess input tax credit claimed by the respondent, stating that it was identified during the filing of audited accounts in Form VAT 240. The petitioner and respondent both appealed this decision. The Tribunal, in its judgment, upheld the dismissal of appeals. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal and that the Division Bench judgment in MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. case was relevant. 3. The respondent contended that the provisions of Sections 10(3) and 35(4) were not applicable to their case as they were incorporated in the statute later. They argued that the revised return was not belated as the requirement to file it within 6 months did not exist during the relevant period. The Court noted that Section 35(4) was introduced on 01.04.2012 and did not apply to the tax period in question, making the revised return timely. 4. The Court clarified that the Division Bench judgment in MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. case did not apply to the present case as it dealt with audited statements of accounts under Section 10(3), which was amended in 2015. The Court found no merit in the petition, stating that the Tribunal did not fail to decide or erroneously decide a question of law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
|
