9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to note that Section 35(4) of the Act which provides the revised return within a period of 6 months from the end of relevant tax period, is incorporated in the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2012 i.e. subsequently. The time limit prescribed for revised return does not apply to the case of the respondent as the tax period pertains to April 2008 to March 2009. Therefore, the revised return filed by the respondent cannot be said to be belated return in the light of Section 35(4) of the Act which has no application to the fact situation of the case. It cannot be held that Tribunal has failed to decide a question of law or has erroneously decided a question of law - Petition dismissed. - STRP NO.457 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2021 - HON BLE MR. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) of the Act. 3. The respondent thereupon filed an appeal. The First Appellate Authority by an order dated 27.03.2012 inter alia held that the respondent had identified the excess input tax credit at the time of filing his audited statement of accounts in Form VAT 240 as prescribed under Section 31(4) of the Act. It was further held that the assessing authority ought to have assessed the correct liability of the respondent under Section 31 of the Act. Accordingly, the input tax credit that was claimed in excess of the amount claimed in the returns, was allowed. The petitioner as well as respondent filed appeals against the aforesaid judgment. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by a common judgment dated 25.06.2015, has dismissed the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act are not applicable to the fact situation of the case as they have been incorporated in the statute subsequently. It is further submitted that at the relevant time, there was no requirement of filing the revised returns within prescribed period of 6 months as it was not in existence at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the revised return filed by the respondent under Section 35(4) of the Act could not be said to be belated. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made to Circular No.15/2017-18 dated 08.02.2018 and decision of Supreme Court in 'M/s. FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR' (1988) (SUPP) SCC 73. 6. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act which has no application to the fact situation of the case. 7. Sofar as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Division Bench decision of this Court in MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. supra is concerned, the same has no application to the fact situation of the case as the aforesaid judgment is an authority for the proposition that audited statement of accounts in Form VAT 240 is only an audited statement of accounts issued by the Chartered Accountant / Cost Accountant / Tax Practitioner and can be construed as returns to compute the net tax liability under Section 10(3) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that Section 10(3) of the Act was incorporated in the statute by way of amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
