Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 545 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether Addl. CCT(R) was justified in denying the registered dealer purchases and thus rejecting the input tax claim made by assessee u/s 10 of the Act - Bonafide Registered dealer Section 10 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 - Held that:- For the assessment year 2005-06 the TIN number of M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore was not in existence - Only on 19-02-2014, the HEALTHY LIFE, and others of HEALTHY LIFE was registered under the Act with different TIN number Therefore, the dealer has failed to establish that the selling dealer M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore is a bonafide registered dealer borne on the file of any local VAT office - Section 70 casts burden on the appellant to prove that any transaction of the dealer for the purposes of payment of tax or assessment of tax or any claim to input tax under the Act - However, the appellate had not discharged the burden cast upon it by producing necessary documents - Hence appellant is not entitled for input tax credit in respect of edible oil purchased from M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore Decided against assessee. Input Tax Credit Entitlement for Deduction of input tax - Input tax in respect of capital goods - Held that:- The assessee had purchased edible oil both from domestic market so also from outside Karnataka State and was paying Tax separately under CST Act, 1956 - The purchase of goods vehicle is a capital goods purchased for the purpose of business - Section 12 provides for deduction of input tax in respect of the capital goods - Hence, assessee is entitled for deduction of input tax in respect of purchase of a Canter fitted with Tanker Decided in favour of Assessee. Input Tax Credit Entitlement for Deduction of input tax - Input tax in respect of other capital goods Lack of Evidence - Held that:- AO had disallowed the input tax on the ground that no such claim is made by the appellant by filing Form VAT 100 and the purchases were not supported by relevant records - Hence, the appellant is not entitled for claiming deduction of input tax in respect of the said capital goods - Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the relief only insofar as the purchase of capital goods i.e. Canter fitted with Tanker and the claim of the appellant in respect of edible oil and other capital goods the appellant is not entitled for any relief - Hence, the first and third questions of law are held against the appellant and the second question of law is held in favour of the appellant - Decided against assessee.
|