9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RCIAL TAXES ZONE III [ 2018 (6) TMI 974 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] while examining the issue of burden of proof has observed that the provision of Section 70 of the Act in its plain terms clearly stipulates that the burden of proving that input tax claim is correct lies upon the dealer claiming such input tax credit. The factual finding given by the prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority requires to be examined by the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority proceeded to set-aside the order of the first Appellate Authority on the ground that the issue is not relating to the question whether the assessee is not a developer of SEZ but the issue relates to the claim of input tax credit made by the assessee on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the 2nd respondent- Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising the powers under Section 64(1) of the Act, dated 12.12.2018 relating to tax periods 2010-11. 2. The appellant is a private limited company engaged as a developer of SEZ units, maintenance and operation of infrastructure facility. The appellant had filed monthly returns in VAT-100 for the tax periods 2010-11. On verification of the same, the Prescribed Authority noticed that the appellant had claimed input tax credit for the purchase of materials from their sub-contractors, M/s. Kanmani Constructions Private Limited, Bengaluru and M/s. Dev Structural India Private Limited, Belagavi. The 4th respondent vide his order dated 15.09.2014 after hearing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of Section 10 of the Act read with Section 20 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) (1997) 11 SCC 378. State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh Trading Company. ii) STRP No.100006/2016 (D.D. 22.01.2018). Mukand Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka. iii) STRP Nos.171 and 313-316/2016 (D.D. 07.12.2016). The State of Karnataka Vs. Rajesh Jain. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the Revenue submitted that the prescribed Authority considering the factual aspects has rightly denied the input tax credit claimed by the appellant. The appellant had claimed input tax credit of ₹ 15,92,055/- on purchases of ₹ 12,37,36,580 from K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.200003/2016 200003-08/2016, D.D. 27.04.2016) M/s. Nav Bharat Steel Vs. State of Karnataka. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The dictums laid down in the judgments referred to by both the parties in the context of Section 10 of the Act are that the burden lies on the assessee to claim the input tax credit. The purchasing dealer having paid the amount of VAT to the registered selling dealer, his entitlement to claim input tax credit need not be tagged with the registered selling dealer depositing the said collected tax amount in full or a part thereof and this principle would be applicable in case of genuine transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al that the Assessee has fully discharged the burden of proof to claim the deduction of input tax as per the tax invoices. It was held that once the purchasing dealer-assessee satisfactorily demonstrates that while purchasing the goods, he has paid the amount of VAT to the selling dealer, the matter should end so far as his entitlement to claim input tax credit. If the selling dealer has not deposited the amount in full or a part thereof, it would be for the Revenue to proceed against the selling dealer. But thereby the benefit of input tax credit cannot be deprived to the purchasing dealer. 12. In the case of Mukand Limited supra, the Division Bench of this Court while considering VAT-100 returns filed by the selling dealers not being t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned LVO-380, Belagavi has allowed ITC of ₹ 12,56,983-00 out of ₹ 12,93,653-00 claimed by the appellant in respect of purchases from M/s. Kanmani Constructions Private Limited, Bengaluru. These proceedings are available from page Nos.77 to 87 in the assessment records respectively. Thus, the concerned LVO-380, Belagavi has allowed and refunded the input tax paid on the purchases from M/s. Dev Structural India Private Limited, Belagavi and M/s. Kanmani Constructions Pvt. Limited, Bengaluru after due verification of all the documentary evidence. 14. Whether al lowing of the input tax credit as aforesaid would preclude the prescribed Authority in denying the input tax credit claimed by the assessee requires to be examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
