TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted local purchase of edible oil from 17 dealers and availed input tax credit. Out of 17 dealers, a dealer by name M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore is not the registered dealer. On verification of TIN number of M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore, it was found to be invalid and they are not the registered dealer borne on the file of any local VAT Office either at Bangalore or in any other place. The assessee had purchased the edible oil to an extent of Rs.1,26,28,900/- for the said period and availed input tax credit. Since the assessee had purchased the edible oil from an unregistered dealer, the assessee is not eligible to avail input tax credit. Further the assessee had availed rebate on purchase of the goods vehicle for transportation of the edible oil. As per Section 11 (a)(3) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled for the said rebate. Though the assessee has not filed Form No.100 in respect of some of the other capital goods purchased, the assessee claimed input tax deduction which is contrary to law. In view of that the Assessing Authority issued proposition notice on 5-6-2008 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the input tax rebate claimed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Whether the respondent is justified in denying the input tax claim on the goods vehicle purchased by the appellant and used in the business, by ignoring the definition in Section 2(7) and the intention of Section 12 of the Act? (iii) Whether the respondent is justified in denying the input tax claim made by the appellant on the purchase of capital goods without appreciating the evidences furnished before the authorities below? 7. Sri. K.M. Shivayogiswamy learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is contrary to law. Appellant is the bonafide purchaser of edible oil in the local markets. In respect of the edible oil purchased from M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore, the respondent refused to extend the benefit of input tax credit solely on the ground that the TIN number of the said dealer fed into the VST Soft MIS maintained in the office is incorrect. On the other hand, the appellant has produced tax invoices issued by the registered dealers. The reasoning given by the respondent to disallow the benefit of input tax credit on purchase made from the aforesaid dealer is contrary to the provision of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a registered dealer. The TIN number mentioned in the tax invoice is an invalid number. In view of that, the respondent has denied input tax in respect of the purchase of edible oil made from M/s Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore. Further, reading of Section 11 of the KVAT Act makes it very clear that input tax shall not be deducted in calculating the net tax payable in respect of the tax paid on purchase of the capital goods. In the instant case, the appellant has purchased the goods vehicle as per Section 11 and they are not entitled to deduction in respect of purchase of capital goods. Apart from using the said goods vehicle for transportation of edible oil, they are using the said vehicle for hire purpose. Further, the appellant has not filed Form No.100 in respect of some of the capital goods purchased. In the absence of filing declaration in Form No.100, the appellant is not entitled for any deduction. The Revisional Authority after considering the matter in detail revised the order passed by the First Appellate Authority and the same does not warrant interference of this Court. Hence sought for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have carefully considered the arguments ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computer print out is enclosed for kind reference. 11. Further this Court by its order dated 13-2-2014 gave an opportunity to the appellant to produce the registration certificate of M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore issued under Rule 9(1) of the KVAT Rules. However, the advocate for appellant produced the registration certificate of HEALTHY LIFE, and others of HEALTHY LIFE registered on 19-02-2014 bearing TIN No.29640450710. Hence it is clear 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. Hence, the appellant dealer has failed to establish that the selling dealer M/s. Healthy Life Agro Foods, Bangalore is a bonafide register dealer borne on the file of any local VAT office. Section 70 of the Act 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 has not discharged the burden cast upon it by producing necessary documents. Hence appellant is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of his business for re-sale or for use in the manufacture or processing or packing or storing of other goods or any other use in business. 14. In the instant case, the records clearly disclose that the assessee had purchased a Canter fitted with the Tanker for the transportation of edible oil which is taxable goods from one place to another. 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 of the Act, provides for deduction of input tax in respect of the capital goods. Hence, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for deduction of input tax in respect of purchase of a Canter fitted with Tanker. The judgment reported in 2009 (67) KLJ 161 in the case of CANARA OVERSEAS LIMITED, BANGALORE v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA relied upon by the advocate appearing for the respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. In respect of purchase of other capital goods is concerned, the Assessing Authority has disallowed the input tax on the ground that no suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
