|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 48 - TRIPURA HIGH COURTInput tax credit - inter-state sale - stock transfer - irregular credit on account of capital goods received from a 100% EOU - Whether in the earlier legal action as instituted by the petitioner-company the challenge to the vires of Section 10(3)(a) and Section 10(3)(b) of the TVAT Act was considered and settled? Held that: - Even in the transaction of stock or consignment transfer and export, the State does not get any tax, neither VAT nor CST even then those transactions are under the umbrella of getting benefit of the Input Tax Credit. Thus, the classification made for purpose of the subject matter is unintelligible. Difference in treatment cannot be explained in the light of the object for which Section 10 of TVAT Act generally stands for. The classification is not based on any reasonable distinction. The differential treatment could not be reasonably explained or justified by the respondents and hence, denial of the Input Credit Tax for sale in the course of interstate trade or commerce is discriminatory as already noted, even after we have unconventionally delved into the records, preceded the enactment, but did not get any explanation there for purpose of the above differential which we have now declared as discriminatory. The benefit of Input Tax shall be available to the petitioner-company for carrying out sale in the course of interstate trade or commerce - But that benefit shall not be extended to the petitioner-company in respect of the returns or the assessment orders unrelated to the assessment order dated 16.06.2015 or prior to but such benefit shall continue in respect of the return or the assessment order posterior to 16.06.2015. On comparison between the sale in the course of interstate trade or commerce and the transaction of stock-transfer, inference that has been in the premise of the said impression, has not persuaded us to utilize the same in this case. Petition allowed.
|
