9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and a company cannot be described as an autonomous body to be covered by the circular relied on by the petitioner. The petitioner contention that that when the Government has chosen to extend the benefit to the sales effected by the Government departments, local bodies and autonomous bodies, there is no reason to deny similar benefit to the petitioner who has effected purchases from a Government company is not acceptable as the question whether such a benefit should be extended to purchases from a Government Company, is a matter for the Government itself to consider, as it is in the realm of a policy decision. Thus going by the return filed and the replies submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Government Pleader and the respective standing counsel appearing for BSNL and MSTC. 2. In so far as WP(C) No.30329 of 2008 is concerned, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P9, an order of assessment passed under Section 25 of the KVAT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) for the assessment years 2006- 2007. According to the petitioner, they are dealers in iron and scrap, registered under the Act. It is stated that the 13th respondent is an agent of BSNL for the sale of scrap. Being an agent of their Principals, 13th respondent will negotiate with prospective purchasers and if successful, will issue delivery orders such as Ext.P1 series. On that basis, BSNL will issue invoice, collect value and tax and on that basis, wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a detailed reply which is duly considered. It is seen that the dealer purchases old and unserviceable telephone posts from local registered dealers and converts them into scrap and effects sales. As per the return filed for the period from 4/06 to 3/07, the dealer has purchased the goods from M/s.MSTC Ltd, Chennai. The input claimed by the dealer is inadmissible as it was not supported by proper tax invoice in the prescribed from. In the reply filed to the notice, the dealer maintains the view that the purchase is from BSNL and requested further time to produce the tax invoice. Accordingly the dealer was given 10 days time to prove his case. But he could not prove the eligibility of returns and purchase statement filed. As per letter date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Section 11(5)(m). 8. However, this defect is sought to be got over by learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the Circular No.18433/B1/2008/TD dated 30th August, 2008 issued by Secretary to Government, where it was directed thus:- "It has been brought to the notice of the Government that many of the Government departments, Local Authorities and Autonomous Bodies have failed to comply with the statutory requirements even though the law was implemented with effect from 1.4.2005 and also that such departments fail to issue the declaration in form No.21J to the buying dealers with the result that they (buying dealers) are denied the benefit of refund of input tax allowed to them by the statute. Even though Government have issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular, Input Tax Credit ought to be allowed as claimed. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, this circular relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable only in respect of sales effected by the Government departments, local authorities and autonomous bodies. Admittedly, BSNL is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and a company cannot be described as an autonomous body to be covered by the circular relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. Here again, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the Government has chosen to extend the benefit to the sales effected by the Government departments, local bodies and autonomous bodies, there is no rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08 relied on by the petitioner should be extended to purchases effected for Government Companies or not is a matter which is for the Government to consider and if the Government/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes clarifies the position in favour of the petitioner, there is no reason why Ext.P9 should not be suitably modified. 12. WP(C) 37781 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice which was issued for recovering the tax due under Ext.P9 in WP(C) No.30329 of 2008. 13. In the light of the above discussion, I dispose of these two writ petitions with the following directions. 1) That it will be open to the petitioner to move the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for a clarification of Circular No.18433/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
