9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit was negated which cannot be found fault with. There is no provision under the Act and Rules to carry forward the rejected input tax credit to the subsequent year. The claim made by the assessee is not in consonance with Section 12 of the Act read with Rule 133(e) and the proviso thereto. Therefore, we do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against the assessee - STRP No. 1501 /2013 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2016 - Ashok B. Hinchigeri And S. Sujatha, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri. L. B. Bannikoppa, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri. Syed Habeeb, Govt. Advocate ORDER This revision petition is filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (the 'Act' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authorities disallowing the input tax claimed on capital goods. Under these circumstances, this revision petition is filed. 4. The only question of law which falls for our consideration is Whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming the orders passed by the authorities, disallowing the input tax credit on capital goods at ₹ 18,06,533/- during the tax periods 2006-07 for the purchase of capital goods made in the tax periods 2005-06? 5. The learned counsel Sri Bannikoppa, appearing for the assessee would contend that the petitioner had filed Form 170 before the authorities on 19.04.2006 declaring the purchase of capital goods. The authorities without taking cognizance of this document proceeded to disallow the input tax c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .05.2006, the assessee had purchased the capital goods during September 2005 to December 2005, the revised returns were filed during the year 2005-06 claiming input tax credit on these capital goods. It is the case of the assessee that the authorities as well as the Tribunal without appreciating these vital aspects rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form VAT 175 during the assessment year 2006-07. This argument is totally misconceived and is untenable. Section 12 of the Act deals with deduction of input tax in respect of capital goods which reads thus: 12. Deduction of input tax in respect of Capital goods 1. Deduction of input tax shall be allowed to the registered dealer in respect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chased prior to the 1st day of April 2006 for which input tax rebate has already been granted in Form VAT 175 shall be claimed by the dealer in return for the month of April 2006. This is not the case of the assessee in the present case. The assessee is contending that for the goods purchased in the tax period September 2005 to December 2005, input tax credit was claimed in the revised returns and VAT Forms 170 were filed on 19.4.2006 and 19.05.2006. It is pertinent to note that this issue was considered by the assessing authority while concluding the assessment for the tax periods April 2005 to March 2006 and rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had carried the matter before the First Appellate Authority which has disa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
