9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng input-tax credit only to the output tax payable in a particular division, the respondents were not justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to claim adjustment of the input-tax credit with the output tax payable in their other divisions - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Revision Case No. 286 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2014 - RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND SATYANARAYANA MURTY M. JJ. S. Dwarakanath for the petitioner. M. Govind Reddy, Special Government Pleader for Taxes (TG), for the respondent. ORDER This revision is preferred against the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal ) in T.A. No. 185 of 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. He rejected the petitioner's claim that the formula, A x B/C, should be applied. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and, on the said appeal being dismissed, they carried the matter in further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. In the order under revision the Tribunal, while recording that the petitioner had several manufacturing units and that the JOCIL unit was one such manufacturing unit, held that, under section 13(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'), input-tax credit for transfer of taxable goods outside the State, by any VAT dealer otherwise than by way of sale, shall be allowed for the amount of tax in excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner's appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Before us Sri S. Dwarakanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, would rely on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Maxwroth Plywoods Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner (CT) [2013] 62 VST 573 (AP); [2012] 54 APSTJ 178; and the order of the STAT which was confirmed in TRC No. 9 of 2013 dated July 4, 2013, to contend that, as the petitioner has a common TIN number for all its divisions, they are entitled to claim input-tax credit for all the divisions as a whole; there is no statutory provision which enables the assessing authority to restrict input-tax credit division wise; rule 20(6) of the Rules, whereunder specific inputs are meant for specific outputs, is applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outputs; they were not following the same method in the case of stock transfers effected from JOCIL where specific inputs were identified for specific outputs; and, in view of the Advance Ruling Authority's decision dated July 9, 2005 which is binding on the petitioner and the assessing authority, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim both regarding the applicability of rule 20(6) of the Rules, and in restricting the benefit of input tax credit division-wise. 6. In Maxwroth Plywoods Private Limited [2013] 62 VST 573 (AP) : [2012] 54 APSTJ 178, the assessee had claimed input-tax credit adjusting it first to the output tax payable on its trading activity, and the remaining input-tax credit against output t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a particular method which would deny them the benefit of utilization of the balance available tax deferment in its entirety, and instead pay tax. The impugned order of assessment, to the extent the assessing authority adjusted the input tax credit first against the manufacturing activity of the petitioner and the balance against their trading activity, is neither a method authorized by law nor can such a method be forced on the assessees as it is to their detriment. The assessment order must, to this limited extent, be set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove... (emphasis Here italicised supplied). 7. Following the said judgment, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Cavinkare (P) Ltd. v. State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
