2016 (11) TMI 1319 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether deduction will be allowed by the assessee through credit note - Rule 31 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules - Held that - there is no discussion by the Tribunal on the aspect as to whether the burden is ever discharged by contemporaneous record or otherwise through satisfactory material that there was a policy by the manufacturer of giving discount at the end of the month if one reaches to a particular level - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Tribunal in ST A Nos.170-180/2012 regarding disallowance of deduction through credit note under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Interpretation of Rule 31 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules regarding issuance of credit note and debit note for discounts.
3. Discrepancy between decisions of different Division Benches of the Court on reflecting discounts in invoices.
4. Burden of proof on the assessee to demonstrate trade discounts or discounts as per contract for claiming deductions.
5. Tribunal's failure to consider evidence of manufacturing company's discount policy due to lack of reflection in invoices.

Analysis:

1. The petition challenges the Tribunal's order dismissing appeals against disallowance of deductions through credit notes under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The dispute arose from re-assessment proceedings where the Assistant Commissioner disallowed the deduction given by the petitioner-assessee through credit notes. The matter was taken to the first appellate authority and then to the Tribunal, which upheld the disallowance, leading to the present petitions before the High Court.

2. The principal contention revolves around the interpretation of Rule 31 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules concerning the issuance of credit notes and debit notes for discounts. The petitioner argued that discounts given as per a manufacturing company's policy should be considered for deduction, even if not reflected in the invoice. The Tribunal, however, relied on a previous decision to disallow the claim due to lack of reflection in the invoice.

3. A discrepancy arises from conflicting decisions of different Division Benches of the Court regarding the reflection of discounts in invoices. While one Bench emphasized the need for discounts to be reflected in invoices for claiming deductions, another Bench provided a broader interpretation allowing discounts through credit notes if demonstrated as trade discounts or as per a contract between the seller and the dealer.

4. The burden of proof is placed on the assessee to demonstrate that discounts claimed through credit notes are trade discounts or as per a contract, as per the interpretation provided by the Court. The onus lies on the assessee to prove that the discounts are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

5. The Tribunal's failure to consider evidence of the manufacturing company's discount policy, which was not reflected in the invoices, led to the High Court setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for further examination. The Court directed the Tribunal to consider the evidence and give both parties an opportunity to present their case before passing appropriate orders.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitions to the extent mentioned, highlighting the importance of proper examination and consideration of evidence in tax-related matters to ensure a just decision.