Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1569 - MADRAS HIGH COURTLiability of tax - manufacture of sheet metal components and effects sales to Hyundai Motor India Limited - section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Input tax credit - Section 19(2)(iv) of the Act - whether the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) are mandatory such that the certificate mentioned therein is the only method by which a dealer/assessee could support his claim in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the relevant statutory provision as well as Rule do not bring home the point that the production of an industrial input certificate is mandatory to avail the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Act. No doubt, Rule 6(3)(b) refers to an industrial input certificate stating that such certificate ought to be procured by the purchaser from the seller. The Supreme Court, in SODHI TRANSPORT CO. AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF UP. AND ANOTHER (AND OTHER APPEALS AND WRIT PETITIONS) [1986 (3) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT], considered the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Sales Tax Act which contains provisions in parimateria with Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, in fact even stricter, since the phrase used therein is ‘shall produce a transit pass’, interpreting the same to state that non-production of a transit pass was not fatal as the burden of establishing exit of the goods from the State would then revert back to the assessee, who could well prove the same by reference to other supporting material. The presumption that the goods have not exited the State was thus rebuttable, enabling the dealer to draw support of other materials in its possession in this regard. Non-production of a Declaration under section 6(3)(b) is not fatal to the claim of the assessee. Having said so, the Assessing Authority has in the impugned order found that only a supporting statement was filed by the petitioner and had no actual particulars of transactions such as work order, inward delivery challan, quantity received and outward delivery challan were supplied. If at all the petitioner was of the view that its claim was in order, the burden rested upon it to justify such claim with whatever material that it could furnish. Such factual particulars do not appear to have been filed. While holding that the Declaration in terms of Section 6(3)(b) is not the only evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner and that the petitioner is well entitled to produce any other supporting evidence as it may be in a position to, this issue is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to be re-done after hearing the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Input Tax Credit - Section 19(2)(iv) of the Act - HELD THAT:- This Court, in the case of SARA LEATHERS VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TAMBARAM I ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, CHENNAI [2009 (10) TMI 848 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] considered the claim of refund by an assessee. The petitioner therein had claimed refund that had been restricted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the proper rate of tax in respect of the goods was much less than what had been remitted. The applicable statutory provision in that case was Section 18 dealing with zero-rating and upon consideration of the mater, this Court has expressed the view that the right of input tax credit, when the payment of tax per se is not disputed, is absolute. If the Revenue were to be extended the discretion to either restrict the claim of refund or a claim of input tax credit when the payment of tax was itself undisputed, then it would give rise to a case of unjust enrichment where having received the tax at a particular rate, the claim of ITC in that regard was restricted. Evidently, this cannot be so and for these reasons, the second ground is allowed. Petition allowed.
|