Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1248 - MADRAS HIGH COURTReversal of input-tax credit - Manufacture of wheels and air-suspension automobile components - Petitioner selling the goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for which the assessing authority took a position that case would fall under clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 19 and therefore, the proviso inserted by the amendment would apply to them and called upon the petitioner to claim the input-tax credit in excess of three per cent. and reverse the credit up to three per cent but petitioner contended that they would fall under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 19 - Held that:- clause (ii) deals with purchase of goods used as input in manufacturing and processing of goods in the State but clause (v) deals with sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Interestingly, clause (ii) uses the expression "manufacturing or processing", but not the expression "sale in the course of inter- State trade or commerce". On the contrary, clause (v) uses the expression "sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce", but not the expression "manufacturing or processing". If at least the expression "sale" had been used in clause (ii), one can conclude that clause (ii) applies only to manufacture and sale within the State. Alternatively, if at least the expression "manufacture" had been used in clause (v), one can conclude that clause (v) covers the manufacture and sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and not manufacture and sale within the State. But, both these clauses omit the expressions essential for the interpretation that the parties want to view to the proviso to clause (v). While the petitioner wants to read into clause (ii), the expression "sale", the respondent wants to read into clause (v), the expression "manufacture". Therefore, if one is wrong, the other is also wrong and if one is right, the other should also be right. So, to come up from this confusion, the application has to be made to Advance Ruling Authority which the appellant has already and rightly made and the respondent ought to have waited for the decision of Advance Ruling Authority. Since the respondent did not wait, the petitioner is justified in coming up before this court.Therefore, the impugned orders suffer from non application of mind and are liable to be set aside. - Matter remitted back
|