Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 1119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , other than by way of sale. Petitioner does not dispute that after issuance of subsequent Circular dated 23.01.2013, cases of other dealers, who were earlier granted benefit of ITC on packing material on stock transfer outside the State other than by sale, in the light of earlier Circular dated 28.06.2008, are now subject matter of re-assessment. Therefore, subsequent Circular dated 23.01.2013 seems to be in consonance with the correct mandate / interpretation of Section 6 of the Act and after issuance of subsequent Circular dated 23.01.2013 earlier Circular dated 28.06.2008 ceases to have any force. Whether proviso to sub Section (3) of Section (6) of the Act is hit by Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India - Held that:- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner, submits that petitioner company is purchasing raw material and packing material within the State of Uttarakhand and thereafter, manufacturing soaps, detergents, creams and toothpastes and while purchasing the raw material, packing material and container, petitioner company is paying VAT to the sellers, therefore, as per scheme of the Uttarakhand VAT Act, petitioner company is entitled for Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as ITC ) while selling the manufactured goods either within the State of Uttarakhand or by inter-State sale or by exporting goods from State of Uttarakhand out of the territory of India or by stock transfer to other States. Mr. Lodha further contends that vide Circular No. 46 dated 28.06.2008, Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r all purposes should be treated as inter-State sale. Mr. Lodha further contends that subsequent Circular No. 4411 dated 23.01.2013, whereby earlier Circular No. 46 dated 28.06.2008 was virtually superseded, should be declared either ultra vires or in violation of the scope of Section 6 of the Act. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Rawat, Addl. Advocate General for State of Uttarakhand, submitted that dealer is liable to pay VAT within State of Uttarakhand in three contingencies viz. sale is made within the State of Uttarakhand or inter-State sale or export from State of Uttarakhand and in all the three contingencies, ITC is extended in favour of the dealer, who has purchased the raw material and packing item or container from State of Utta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... her than by way of sale, as sale, therefore, transfer of stock by manufacturer to other States, in my humble opinion, should not be considered as inter-State sale. Moreover, bare reading of proviso of sub-Section (3) of Section 6 and sub-Section (4) (a) (ii) of Section 6 shall demonstrate that sub-Section (3) speaks about stock transfer to other State, other than by way of sale while sub Section 4 (a) (ii) speaks about sale outside the State coupled with dispatch or stock transfer of goods. Both sub-Sections cover different fields. A careful reading of sub-Section (3) (e) and sub-Section (4) would demonstrate that raw material, consumables, containers, packing materials are different components used for the purpose of manufacturing fi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3.01.2013 earlier Circular dated 28.06.2008 ceases to have any force. Mr. Lodha appearing for the petitioner has further contended that proviso to sub Section (3) of Section (6) of the Act is hit by Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. reported 2014 (4) SCC 720 while placing reliance on earlier judgments of the Apex Court has held that State cannot discriminate between goods manufactured or produced within the State and goods imported from outside the State by giving exemption to goods locally produced and imposing tax on the goods imported from outside the State. In the present case, State of Uttarakhand has not imposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates