9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL For the Petitioner : (By Sri. Gangadhar. J.M. Aag A/W Smt. Girija Hiremath, HCGP) For the Respondent (By Sri. T. Suryanaraya, Senior Counsel For Sri. H.R. Kambiyavar, Advocate And Sri. Jitendra C.P, Advocate) ORDER S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J. The petitioner has assailed the correctness of the orders dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in STA No. 74/2018 and STA No. 75/2018. 2. By virtue of the order passed in the above mentioned STAs, the tribunal has allowed the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the assessing authority while remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders by accepting the Net Input Tax Credit declared by the appellant at Rs. 7,20,92,631-00 in the monthly return turn over in Form VAT-100 for the months of July to October 2014. Direction was passed remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to allow Input Tax Credit of the invoices of the previous months claimed in subsequent months, in terms of the decision reported in 2018 (90) KGST.L.J 2019 (Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to file an appeal. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It must be noticed at the outset that, admittedly the question is as regards the delayed claim of Input Tax Credit in terms of Section 10 (3) of the KVAT Act. 10. Learned Single Judge in the case of Kirloskar Electric Co., Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 90 taxmann.com 157 (Karnataka), has considered the point in detail and had framed a question which is detailed at paragraph No.4 of the aforesaid Judgment which reads as follows: 4. The questions which arise are: (i) Whether the claim of deduction or set off of Input Tax Credit against Output Tax liability of the dealer can be restricted or denied on the ground of any time frame within which such Sales Invoices on the basis of which ITC is claimed should pertain or information or record of such ITC Invoices should be informed in the Returns to be filed, particularly if such time frame is restricted to the period of Tax Period which can be as short as a month or a quarter, or the period of filing of Returns being 20 days from the end of month concerned or maximum six months from the end of Tax period even for filing of Revised Returns disclosing errors and omissions? (ii) What is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KVAT Act, prior to its amendment vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, shall be read down to enable the petitioners to calculate the net tax liability by deducting the input tax paid on its purchases from its output tax liability, irrespective of the month in which the selling dealer raises invoices. (Emphasis supplied) 25. In Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka , the facts are, the assessees claimed Input Tax Credit against the output tax liability in respect of the sales made by it in the year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer denied the claim on the ground that the input tax credit is deductible only in that 'Tax Period' during which the invoices of the selling Dealer is raised. 26. The Hon'ble Single Judge, has allowed the writ petition holding that: 30. Both the questions framed above are therefore liable to be answered in favour of the petitioners assessees. The claim of ITC cannot be restricted and denied on the stated grounds by Revenue. It cannot be denied only because ITC claim is not made in respect of Sale Invoices which are not pertaining to same Tax Period, nor it can be denied on the ground that such claim is not made immedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him in the production of an excisable product immediately it makes the requisite declaration and obtains an acknowledgment thereof. It is entitled to use the credit at any time thereafter when making payment of excise duty on the excisable product. There is no provision in the Rules which provides for a reversal of the credit by the excise authorities except where it has been illegally or irregularly taken, in which event it stands cancelled or, if utilized, has to be paid for. We are here really concerned with credit that has been validly taken, and its benefits is available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time or otherwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to use the raw material in its excisable product. The credit is, therefore, indefeasible. It should also be noted that there is no co-relation of the raw material and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product that is manufactured out of the particular raw material to which the credit is related. The credit may be taken against the excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day that is becomes available. (Emphasis Supplied) 30. It is further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
